Talk:University of Canterbury/Archive 1

Ban from Wikipedia Editing
As of November 2007 (possibly earlier?) It would appear that anyone using the UoC internet connection is blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.255.54.244 (talk) 22:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I'm currently editing this page at the University of Canterbury with no problem. 132.181.43.33 22:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Simplified language
I just reverted an edited that replaced "maintains" with "has", "X stands next to Y" with "X is next to Y" etc. I prefer the more varied language and see no reason to simplify it like this. A Simple English version would be a good idea, but that's a separate wiki; when I've got a moment I'll start an article there. --Zeborah (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Old Content
Scott Davidson is not a pro-vice-chancellor for the law department he is not even part of the law department anymore. ( I checked the website, and the staff brochure)

There may be other inconsistencies, but i am not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.69.240.142 (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Awards section
I've added something about the 2006 Cycle Friendly Award that the university has won. I've had a look through the page and the information didn't seem to fit anywhere. So I've started a new section. I'm sure that there are lots of other awards that could be added. Schwede66 (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Rankings
At the beginning of October, substantial material was added which is mostly critical of the University's recent performance and advertising. With a few tweaks, this material has mostly been accepted on Wikipedia. However, the section on rankings has since then been subject to a slow edit war between the original anon and another. I reproduce the fuller version of the section below for discussion:
 * In 2010 QS World University Rankings ranked the University of Canterbury 189th overall in the world, making it the third highest ranked university in New Zealand. Its individual global subject rankings were: 212th in Arts & Humanities, 110th in Engineering & IT, 242nd in Natural Sciences, and 152nd in Social Sciences. In 2011 the University of Canterbury slipped from 189th to 212th in these rankings. As the 2011 results were released, the University of Canterbury launched an advertising campaign in which the VIce Chancellor Dr Rod Carr claims that it ranks among the top 2% of universities in the world but without elaborating on what basis this was assessed. Further, the University has promoted itself as being the first university in New Zealand to have been granted five stars by QS Stars, a global university rating system. Unlike the QS World University rankings, QS Stars ratings are only given to universities that pay a fee; the programme is designed to give "...those institutions that are not highly ranked or do not appear in the rankings an opportunity to reach out to their prospect students, to stand out and to be recognised for their excellence.

The second anon wishes to truncate the paragraph after the second sentence, ie from "In 2011" onwards. No reason has been given for this. I have suggested that this third sentence remain, since it is purely factual and referenced, but I am less willing to defend the rest of the paragraph which appears to be combining a number of sources to make an argument or inference not directly supported by the sources directly. My proposal is clearly not satisfactory to either of the anons. I welcome their explanations here, and input from other parties.- gadfium 20:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (copied from User talk:147.47.241.81)
 * It seems appropriate to me that any claims made by the University of Canterbury staff members, in the media, or on their web pages, can and should be fairly covered in a fair and balanced manner, supported by references. That's what's been done here. A University of Canterbury IP number has been used repeatedly to delete this additional information without providing any supporting reasons at all.

Wikipedia needs to take action to improve the site relating to the University as it is inaccurate presently showing too much negativity that does not represent the true state of affairs at Canterbury.


 * To be a useful reference source, it is important that Wikipedia users have a full view of the University of Canterbury's credentials. Surely, if its Vice Chancellor is going around stating that the University is one of the best in the world, which he has, a balanced account of what that means is justifiable. Especially relevant is that the University of Canterbury's claims rests on a paid endorsement, and as far as I know, no other New Zealand university has made this sort of payment - that's why the University of Canterbury is the only one in New Zealand to have this designation.


 * Wikipedia should not be used as an internet public relations exercise/advertisement for the University of Canterbury. The University have their own web pages to make whatever claims they wish to make, and they take full advantage of those to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.47.241.81 (talk • contribs)
 * Yesterday I updated the figures. Today I see the drama about what the University claims has popped back in - and I've removed it. The entry now has a reasonable summary of the rankings suitable for an encyclopia. What extra claims and spin the university itself applies don't belong here. Snori (talk) 01:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support, I support gadfium 's proposal. The 'In 2011 ...' sentence is relevant and well referenced. The rest falls under WP:UNDUE in my opinion. In fact, the fee paying claim for the QS Stars is not supported by a reference. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a UC employee, I am not the anonymous UC IP editor and I have previously attempted to remove this disputed content.--Paul (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see how the case can be made that the QS Stars is not supported by a reference. Indeed it is supported by a reference. This is factual information that is supported by a reference and is necessary for readers to understand UC claims. The original information was sourced from the Christchurch Press. I think this is suitable, indeed necessary for a contemporary encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.47.240.127 (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Statement "QS Stars ratings are only given to universities that pay a fee", no reference. The reference following that sentence does not mention fees as far as I can see.--Paul (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I first reworded the challenged clause but then found a better reference that specifies the fees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.47.212.155 (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Personnel
The recent addition to this section looks to me to be rather unfair on the university. The source cited identifies a trend amongst New Zealand universities, but it does not appear to identify Canterbury as being significantly better or worse than others. The information is also rather old - it would be more appropriate to use current figures. Given the recent addition of negative material as discussed above, it appears that there is a campaign to discredit the university.- gadfium 03:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * From my knowledge of the experiences of various staff at Canterbury University, I am aware that the issues to which this section refers are continuing. Some of this has been discussed in meetings between University management and staff. However, only verifiable and credible references have been used to support this section, and I am unaware of any since 2007. The intent of the article should not be to provide a comparison with other universities, although recent additions suggest that it is taking on this role. More information should be added to articles on the other universities; perhaps an article on the current organisation of the overall New Zealand tertiary sector should be started. BeFairCanty (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This article is becoming increasingly soapbox-like. Squabbles between management and staff do not really belong in an Encyclopedia, unless they are truly notable.--Paul (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If they were just minor or short-termed squabbles, I'd agree. But serious questions have been raised in mainstream media that are reported here. Soapbox criteria apply equally to positive promotion, with which this and other uni articles are filled in abundance - they read like abridged university catalogs. Presentation from a neutral perspective should be the key criterion for inclusion. Amplification of comments appears to have occurred in response to challenges of accuracy. BeFairCanty (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It does appear that negative postings have been placed on the Canterbury university wikipedia site that are subjective and misleading. If these entries are made by disgruntled staff this is not the place to vent a gripe as it leaves prospective students the losers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupert1964 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

University of Canterbury Graduate profile.
UC has launched a graduate profile, which is effectively a “model” of the sort of student UC wishes to produce. The attributes are:

Critically competent in a core academic discipline of their degree Students know and can critically evaluate and, where applicable, apply this knowledge to topics/issues within their majoring subject.

Employable, innovative and enterprising Students will develop key skills and attributes sought by employers that can be used in a range of applications.

Biculturally competent and confident Students will be aware of and understand the nature of biculturalism in Aotearoa New Zealand, and its relevance to their area of study and/or their degree.

Engaged with the community Students will have observed and understood a culture within a community by reflecting on their own performance and experiences within that community.

Globally aware Students will comprehend the influence of global conditions on their discipline and will be competent in engaging with global and multi-cultural contexts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupert1964 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Diversity
The University of Canterbury is recognised as a highly diverse institution, ranking within the top 25 most international universities in the world according to Times Higher Education (THE) in 2014 (19th) and 2015 (22nd). THE based its ranking on “diversity on campus and to what degree academics collaborate with international colleagues on research projects - both signs of how global an institution is in its outlook”.

In its 2014 Annual Report, the University says “equity and diversity issues underpin the core business of the University…the aim of the University’s equity and diversity programmes is to foster a campus environment of inclusion, knowledge and understanding in which students and staff learn to value diversity and to respect individual differences that enrich the University community”.

Of total enrolments for 2014 at the University of Canterbury, 7.3% of students identified as Māori, while 2.6% identified as Pacific Islanders. A further 13% identified as Asian, while 2% were Indian. Five percent identified as an ‘Other’ ethnicity.

In March 2015 UC held its first Diversity Week program under the theme ’Everyone Belongs’.

The New Zealand Tertiary Education Commission has identified both Pacific Islander (or Pasifika) and Māori students under the age of 25 as priority learner groups. This is because educational outcome disparities have remained the same or widened with these groups compared to non-Māori and non-Pasifika students. Accordingly, the University has created particular development strategies to support these groups.

The University has an Office of the Assistant Vice Chancellor Maori, who is part of the Senior Management Team. The University have recently (in the last year) launched Maori and Pasifika strategies. The university have an internal staff training course called Tangata Tu, Tangata Ora, that promotes cultural awareness. Several senior managers are learning Te Reo In 2015 the University ran its first “Diversity Week” in March, to promote inclusiveness and mutual understanding on campus. The University has several channels for staff to report issues of racism or sexism, including a confidential whistleblower service. An OIA request from the Press last year asking for evidence of staff reporting these issues (from memory) came up with zero — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupert1964 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

School of Maori and Indigenous Studies. http://www.arts.canterbury.ac.nz/aotahi/ Office of the Assistant Vice Chancellor Maori http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/vco/avc_maori/ Maori Development Team http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/vco/avc_maori/people.shtml Director of Pasifika http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/pacificstudents/director/director.shtml Pasifika Development Team http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/pacificstudents/about/pacificdevelopment.shtml Ngai Tahu Research Centre http://www.ntrc.canterbury.ac.nz/ Macmillan Brown Library http://library.canterbury.ac.nz/mb/mbabout.shtml Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies http://www.pacs.canterbury.ac.nz/people/ratuva.shtml New Director of Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies http://www.comsdev.canterbury.ac.nz/rss/news/?feed=news&articleId=1477 Maori Development Strategy http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/vco/documents/2012%20Strategy%20for%20Maori%20Development.pdf Also: http://www.comsdev.canterbury.ac.nz/news/2008/080820a.shtml Pasifika Strategy http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/pacificstudents/documents/UCPasifika_Strategy2014.pdf Diversity Week http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/support/diversity-week.shtml 21 Day International Challenge http://www.comsdev.canterbury.ac.nz/rss/news/?feed=news&articleId=1667 Equity and Diversity (including Advisory committee) http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/support/diversity.shtml UC commended in quality audit http://www.comsdev.canterbury.ac.nz/rss/news/?feed=news&articleId=1658 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupert1964 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Pasifika Scholarship and Programmes

In 2014 the University launched a Pasifika student strategy, which was created in consultation with the Pasifika community. This strategy outlines the University’s approach to supporting the educational goals of Pasifika learners. The strategy aims to increase total Pasifika student enrolments (first-year, postgraduate, PhD, and international students), increase Pasifika staff numbers and improve the educational performance of priority learner groups.

The University of Canterbury has produced Pasifika leaders across a number of fields. Notable alumni include the former Prime Minster of Tonga, Dr. Feleti Sevele, President of Kiribati, Anote Tong, and Samoa’s Supreme Court Judge Justice Vui Clarence Nelson, who was recently appointed to the United Nations’ Committee on the Rights of the Child.

The University is home to the Macmillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies, one of the earliest Pacific studies centres to be established in New Zealand. The Centre aims to promote and advance scholarship and understanding of the Pacific region and its people, societies and cultures, histories, arts, politics, environment and resources, developments and future. It was founded through a bequest from the late Professor John Macmillan Brown, a founding Professor of the University of Canterbury and a former Vice Chancellor of the University of New Zealand, who spent a considerable amount of time travelling and studying the countries of the Pacific. An audit by the New Zealand government’s Academic Quality Agency (AQA) commended UC on its “extensive range of support activities provided for pre-tertiary, undergraduate and postgraduate Pasifika students and on the dedication of the Pacific Development Team to the participation and success of Pasifika students”.

In particular, the AQA noted that all first year Pasifika students are assigned a senior Pasifika student mentor upon enrolment; over one-third of Pasifika students access free tutoring through the Pacific Academic Solutions and Success (PASS) programme; NZAid students from the Pacific have the opportunity to have their needs assessed and addressed by an Academic Skills Centre; a refresh programme is offered to students who did not perform well the previous year; and the targeted financial assistance for support of Pasifika students provided by alumni donors is appreciated by staff. In future this alumni assistance is to also be extended to Māori students.

Māori Scholarship and Programmes

In 2012, Te Rautaki Whakawhanake Kaupapa Māori (UC Strategy for Māori Development) was launched in conjunction with and endorsed by Ngāi Tahu, the principal Māori iwi of the southern region of New Zealand. A significant aim of the strategy is to increase the number of Māori students enrolling and successfully completing study at UC.

The University has also established a Māori Development Team (MDT) to develop support initiatives that enhance the Māori student experience and optimise their personal social and academic success. This includes a special Māori Orientation to welcome new UC students and help them settle into university life; individual advisor appointments to support students to resolve any issues that might be impacting on study; Māori Tuakana Mentoring Support to provide new students with a senior student mentor to help them settle in and to give senior students leadership opportunities; and academic development and support opportunities through collaboration with colleges and the Academic Skills Centre.

The University is also home to the Ngāi Tahu Research Centre (NTRC), founded for the purpose of indigenous scholarship and to provide a centre for the intellectual capital and development of Ngāi Tahu. NTRC was established in August 2011 as a joint venture between Ngāi Tahu and the University of Canterbury. --125.238.112.223 (talk) 07:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Untitled
Sir William Pickering - I had considered adding him, but wasn't sure that he qualified, having only spent his first undergrad year at Canterbury. What should the qualification be? dramatic

That they were educated at the university at some point is enough to generally count a person as an alumn, I believe. U of C certainly remembered him as an alumnus when he passed away this year. Perhaps those who are/were faculty should be put slightly separately from alumni? And how many should we have on this list, anyway? There are plenty more that could be added...those who are/were significant within NZ, or those who made an impact on a wider scale, or both? Is there a standard for this? Also, Roy Kerr's article definitely needs to be expanded. --Iridia 06:43, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

The University has traditionally had a varied, dynamic and social student life. Post earthquake, the University has various building projects completed, underway or in planning designed to improve and revitalise the student campus for the new generation of students. The UC campus is believed to be the largest remediation project currently being carried out in Canterbury. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupert1964 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Personnel and controversy section
Recent additions to the Personnel and controversy by new WP:SPA editor User:Jw9 are worrying. While I'll be the first to admit that they are well sourced, the most significantly issues are: WP:Recentism (UC's only had issues in the last decade of it's 150 year existance? I think not.); WP:NPOV (things like 'came under full-scale attack' without a non-partisan source for that); and WP:STYLE (it reads like a polemic essay). There are other issues (lack of wikilinks, structure, etc) but they're minor. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I share your concerns. Editors critical of the university have been active on the article for about the last three years - see the previous two sections of this talk page. The recent additions by Jw9 have gone well beyond previous criticisms. I would support an effort to make them more neutral and reduce their weight. I changed a link in Stuartyeates' post above .- gadfium 02:47, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The material about the vice-chancellor Carr violating a promise to not accept a pay raise violates BLP and must be removed. It is a contentious claim that is poorly sourced (cited to a labor union press release) and is synthesis (the cited source does not even mention Carr's earlier promise, nor does it mention the university's decline in rankings). I believe the paragraph about the lecturer who declined an award because of student racism and sexism should also be removed as undue weight. The cited sources (one of which is a blog by the person in question) only give the opinion of one person out of the thousands who work at and attend the university, there's no indication of any issue large enough to be mentioned in this article. The entire section about "Long-term administrative efforts" is also quite problematic; to rewrite it in compliance with NPOV, OR, RS, and UNDUE would probably condense it down to 2 or 3 sentences. Toohool (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Toohool may be politically opposed to labor unions, and may even believe they are illegitimate organizations that do not deserve to exist. Toohool's political views do not, however, render labor unions illegitimate sources of information (any more than the myriad links to management-provided information on this page are illegitimate because their source is management). Moreover, the New Zealand government publication that Toohool disparagingly dismisses as a mere "spreadsheet" nevertheless clearly states "chief executive remuneration" at UC. Rod Carr has been the only chief executive of the University of Canterbury since 2009. The fact that the New Zealand government refers to him in their publication by his official title (i.e., as the "chief executive" of the University of Canterbury) rather than by his given name hardly invalidates the published information provided by this government. The article now includes references to two sources for the same information: a labor union and a conservative government. That sounds balanced to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boolootoo (talk • contribs) 15:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My edits here have nothing to do with political views and I'll thank you to assume good faith. Please review the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources and you will see that the definition includes "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". While we typically give news organizations the benefit of the doubt in terms of their reputation, there is no such dispensation for advocacy organizations like the Tertiary Education Union, so you would have to show that they have such a reputation. As for the spreadsheet, it is a primary source, and therefore must be used with "extreme caution" when using it to make assertions about a living person. The entire paragraph as well is a textbook example of synthesis. If you want the article to say or imply that Carr broke a promise then find a reliable source that says he broke a promise. Even that would just be the minimum bar to pass WP:BLP, I would still be skeptical that this information is important enough to be in the article. Toohool (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This paragraph hardly constitutes either a "synthesis" or a "biography." It contains a mere two sentences. The first draws information from a major NZ newspaper. The second draws information from a well-known and respected NZ online newspaper with a reputation for fact-checking (Scoop Independent News), as well as from a New Zealand government agency set up to deliver public information to the public. I fail to understand how you can claim that a public information release from the New Zealand government is somehow suspect and must be used with "caution." The government-released public information report cited in the article involves a government agency reporting public information to the public, as is its purpose. What possible reason could there be for rejecting as suspect a government claim regarding the amount it paid to one of its employees? Do you think the New Zealand government is deliberately making a false claim that it gave the chief executive of the University of Canterbury a raise of more than $40,000, when in fact it gave him no raise? What would be their reason for making this false claim? What would be your evidence for distrusting a public information release made to the public by the New Zealand government, stating, as is required by law, that it gave one of its employees a raise of more than $40,000? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boolootoo (talk • contribs) 20:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Boolootoo has been indefinitely blocked, but I will address this anyway. BLP applies to all information about living persons, even if only two sentences, even in an article that is not primarily a biography. The cited page on Scoop Independent News is not a fact-checked journalistic article, it is a verbatim reprint of this press release. It is synthesis to say "Mr. X promised he wouldn't take a pay raise, then he was given a pay raise," with the clear implication that he broke a promise. There are any number of other possible explanations or mitigating circumstances (maybe the "promise" was taken out of context, the promise referred to some different period of time than the raise, or he got the raise but gave the money back or donated it to charity, or the raw data cited for the raise was misinterpreted or simply mistaken, or the raise was in the form of increasing value for nonmonetary benefits that nobody could control). If a reliable source were to report on this supposedly broken promise, they would check their facts and give the subjects a chance to give their side of the story. That's what is missing here. If you think there's a story here, give it to a reputable news organization and let them run with it. Wikipedia is not the forum for your investigative reporting. Toohool (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I support the statement that the paragraph about the lecturer who declined an award because of student racism and sexism should also be removed as undue weight. It is completely misleading and driven by agenda.

Can anyone tell me what's gone on with the locking of the page due to vandalism? The current page, esp this section, really needs work to move the opinion and misrepresentation about the closure of Theatre and Film and American Studies and the bundling together of the drop in students post-quake with the changes in Arts. The title 'decline' is a misrepresentation. I am not volunteering to do that editing, btw, as I was part of the admin group that oversaw that closure and have a conflict of interest similar to those who are putting this material up. If there is an ongoing edit war, maybe the thing to do would be to shift that whole section to a new entry on the closure of those departments and the dispute? Donaldmatheson (talk • contribs) 11:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've just removed most of this section. It wasn't written as an encyclopaedia article, and was pushing an agenda. With respect to Stuart, I disagree with the post at the start of the thread that the material was well sourced - opinion articles were being used to support statements of fact, and the figures for the decline in student numbers, and reason for this, weren't in the source provided. Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Turning a corner and recent developments
--PhilAtUC (talk) 01:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Post-Earthquake Campus Development/Renewal In the wake of the 2010 Canterbury earthquakes the University has undertaken an extensive development and remediation program to transform its undergraduate degrees, to build new facilities and refurbish existing campus buildings. Overall, $1.2 billion of capital expenditure is planned over 10 years to cover 80% of the campus.


 * Inappropriate use of a primary, self-published source CorporateM (Talk) 19:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Students and courses As part of the post-quake renewal and development, the University of Canterbury is developing its undergraduate degrees. The University says changes will mean bachelor’s degrees will increasingly reflect New Zealand’s bicultural nation and an increasingly linked world. Its vision is to develop “people prepared to make a difference / tangata tū, tangata ora”. The University reports quarterly to the Government on its Graduate Profile Transformation project.


 * Same. Please use credible, independent sources; not the university's own website and materials. CorporateM (Talk) 19:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

College of Engineering redevelopment – Canterbury Engineering the Future The University of Canterbury is spending nearly $145 million to revamp the College of Engineering facilities on campus over three years to 2018, following support from the New Zealand Government for up to $260 million for two major programmes of work in science and engineering. The project will remediate or rebuild all of the engineering laboratories, classrooms, staff and student facilities in the engineering precinct of the University.


 * Ditto CorporateM (Talk) 19:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Regional Science and Innovation Centre (RSIC) The $213 million government-funded RSIC project – named for the University’s most distinguished alumnus, Nobel Prize winner Ernest, Lord Rutherford – will create buildings that house state of the art teaching and research laboratories for physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology and geology. The RSIC project will add 25,000 square metres of new accommodation for the College of Science across two buildings. The first building is due to for completion in 2017. The University says the RSIC infrastructure will be designed “to encourage and promote individual excellence and cross-disciplinary thinking and collaboration. ”


 * Ditto CorporateM (Talk) 19:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Student Accommodation The university has eased pressure on the already-stressed Christchurch housing market by addressing the urgent need for student accommodation over the last few years.

As student numbers are expected to return to pre-quake levels by 2018, the University has begun expanding student accomodation to meet demand. The university has almost filled all its 2,065 beds for single full-year students at its residence halls for the 2015 academic year —the most the University has ever accommodated on campus.


 * Ditto CorporateM (Talk) 19:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Work is under way on a 60-bed student accommodation block as an extension of the current Bishop Julius Residence Hall, expected to be finished in mid-2015. College House is currently undergoing a refurbishment project to build a new student kitchen, dining room and expansion to accommodate 15 additional students, due to be completed in May 2015.
 * Ditto CorporateM (Talk) 19:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

In 2014, Deputy Prime Minister Bill English opened another 60-bed hall of residence in the University’s Waimairi student accommodation village.


 * Ditto CorporateM (Talk) 19:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Arts Centre The University will lease the former Chemistry building in the Christchuch Arts Centre for at least eight years from April 2015 following a five-month, $1.5 million fit out.

Canterbury University Vice Chancellor Dr Rod Carr says the building will provide student learning in classics and music, including increased opportunities for music performances. The James Logie memorial art collection of more than 350 Greek and Roman artifacts—damaged on the University’s current campus in the earthquakes but since restored—will be on display within the classics teaching spaces on the ground floor.

While the refurbishment of the Arts Centre is widely considered an integral part of the Christchurch rebuild, the University believes it will enable departments housed there to “engage more effectively with the city’s local and international arts scene, including increased performance opportunities for music and theatre students. In particular, the classics and music departments will have an ideal environment for greater collaboration with the Arts Centre, the Canterbury Museum, the Art Gallery, and other key parts of the Christchurch cultural and educational community. ”


 * Ditto CorporateM (Talk) 19:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Contribution to Canterbury Recovery Efforts The University of Canterbury is a significant employer in the greater Christchurch region, and also indirectly supports many off-campus jobs. A University study from 2011 found that for every job on campus nearly two jobs off-campus were created or supported.


 * Ditto CorporateM (Talk) 19:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The UC campus is believed to be the largest remediation project currently being carried out in Canterbury. Hawkins Construction, the University’s main contractor in a $143m agreement for repairing buildings has already delivered 18 building projects to date with more due for completion this year. It is the largest development project on the campus in 40 years.


 * Ditto CorporateM (Talk) 19:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Rankings In the University’s Annual Report for the 2014 financial year, both University Vice Chancellor Dr Rod Carr and Chancellor Dr John Wood said the University had closed a chapter on earthquake recovery in 2014, stating it had “put behind it the post-earthquake period of uncertainty, stabilisation and planning and was looking forward to a period of heightened activity, consolidation of progress so far, and delivery on the opportunities for the future. ”


 * Ditto CorporateM (Talk) 19:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

In 2014 the University of Canterbury was ranked by 242nd in the QS World University Rankings, maintaining its place in the top 250 universities in the world. According to the University this places it in the top three percent of the 17,000 universities worldwide.

According to the Tertiary Education Commission, in 2013 the University of Canterbury had the highest proportion of students progressing to higher levels of study of any New Zealand university. The same study also found University of Canterbury led New Zealand tertiary institutions in proportion of students in a given year who complete a qualification.

Engineering is the University’s most recognised discipline with civil and structural engineering currently ranked 19th in the world by the QS World University Rankings. Civil engineering at the University is ranked third in the southern hemisphere.

Enrolment In 2014, 14,725 students were studying at Canterbury and enrolment for 2015 is expected to be more than 14,600.

Full-time, new international student enrolment is up 24 percent year-on-year with increases in science, arts, engineering, business and law. Domestic student numbers are stable or slightly down overall (1.8 percent), however new-to-university students from the Christchurch region are up slightly, despite the number of Year 13 students in the Canterbury region decreasing. Retention rates are positive and with the exception of 2011, retention rates have exceeded pre-earthquake levels for domestic and international students. Student numbers appear likely to rise to pre-quake levels by 2018.


 * Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest and making this proposal on the talk page. I think the article does need to be rebalanced after years of having mostly-critical information added.


 * I would like to see comment from established editors on the specific text requested to be added. The material uses sources directly from the university to a greater extent than I might like, but there may not be third-party sources available. I don't see a problem if any established editor wants to add pieces of the proposed text to appropriate places in the article in the meantime.


 * It might also be appropriate here to discuss the organisation of the article. In particular, the material under the subheading "Personnel, controversy and decline" would perhaps be better within "History"- gadfium 21:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * A couple of issues.
 * Using all this material would amount to WP:RECENTISM. The university is over a hundred years old and all this material treats it like it's never had an upheaval before (hint: compare enrolments to the war periods, etc?)
 * Sources need to be collapsed so as not to repeat.
 * Use TEC figures for enrolment, since they're the reliable source for enrolment figures in NZ education. In general UoC sources should not be used except for direct quotes.
 * Language like 'last few years' is covered by WP:WEASEL.
 * Names (personal and institutional) are repeated in full, these need to be converted to standard wikipedia usage.
 * References come after punctuation, not before
 * Needs substantially more wikilinks
 * comsdev.canterbury.ac.nz are professional spin doctors / PR people; remove / replace those references, or give info attributing authorship to a named officeholder (chancerller, VC, etc).
 * Just my 2c. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Most of the proposed submissions rely exclusively on the university website as a citation, which is a self-published, primary source, whereas we required that credible, independent, secondary sources like the press, books, scholarly journals, etc. be the primary basis of an article. However, I also cleaned up a lot of primary sources in the current article and restored some balance by deleting a lot of editorialized quotes and excessive detail about the decline after the earthquake. CorporateM (Talk) 19:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of carefully documented facts without explanation
Toohool has committed a wholesale deletion of carefully documented facts drawn from newspaper sources, University of Canterbury and New Zealand Royal Society statistical publications, and even peer-reviewed academic publications. Toohool has offered no explanation for this wanton act of wholesale deletion. What is Toohool's purported justification for this action? Below is the carefully documented section that Toohool saw fit to delete wholesale. Some of the passages below were already on the page (and were left there by Toohool). Of the passages below that Toohool has deemed unworthy of appearing in Wikipedia, what are the reasons for their deletion? Which passage is not well documented? What justification does Toohool offer? Why has Toohool not even seen fit to offer even the pretense of a justification for what Toohool has unilaterally deemed unworthy of inclusion here?

Here are the passages that were already on the page, along with those unilaterally deemed unworthy by Toohool. Please identify the passages deemed illegitimate and offer an actual basis for this identification:

Staff reductions and academic freedom issues
UC, like some other New Zealand universities, tends to take a litigious approach to managing its staff and, despite increasing its number of human-resources managers, routinely engages lawyers and employment advocates to handle even minor matters. The university's 2006 financial reports list $836,000 as having been paid out as compensation for employment-relationship problems, more than any other New Zealand university. Unlike the majority of New Zealand universities, UC has refused to release records on how much it spends on external lawyers, advocates and consultants for advice and representation.

Blaming a decrease in student enrolments that they attributed to the Christchurch earthquakes, university administrators announced in September 2011 that they may lay-off 350 or more faculty and staff. However, one journalist reported in early 2012 that UC's attempts to develop and promote a variety of arguments to justify faculty layoffs and degree programme closures long predated the earthquakes. Similarly, one peer-reviewed academic analysis of UC's actions also cast doubt upon official accounts of the university's actions and motivations. Furthermore, it was revealed by an investigative journalist in 2012 that UC had held a series of secret meetings with another local education provider during which it covertly attempted to "sell" a department it had tried but failed to close several years earlier.

The suggestion has been made that staff eliminations are sometimes based on academic ideology rather than merit. Resignations have occurred by staff who complained about restrictions on academic freedom.

UC had eliminated over 100 jobs even prior to the earthquakes, losing prominent scholars in the process. By the end of 2013, after two years of faculty downsizing and program closures, UC student numbers had fallen for the third consecutive year to 13,867 domestic students and 1,013 international students, prompting one journalist to declare in the city's main newspaper that the university had become a "ghost town". In its 2013 Annual Report, UC states that it spent $4.66 million in 2012 and 2013 alone on expenses associated with faculty and staff layoffs (severance pay, legal costs, etc.). The university's total equivalent full-time student (EFTS) enrollments fell further still in 2014 to 11,943.

After they were confronted with substantial opposition from the UC governing Council to administrators' attempts to lay-off faculty and close programmes on the basis of putative earthquake-related exigencies, investigative journalists reported that top UC administrators responded by eliminating 40% of the seats on the university's governing Council, thus making governance of the institution less democratically representative of various community stakeholders, more responsive to business interests and to the conservative government of the day, and, in the view of some experts cited by the investigative journalists of Christchurch's main newspaper, less capable of fulfilling its obligations as "critic and conscience of society".

One 2014 academic study found that the University of Canterbury is at the extreme cutting-edge of a radical restructuring of the conditions of university employment in New Zealand that is seriously eroding universities' research, teaching and “critic and conscience of society” missions, and that the extreme actions taken at UC cannot be adequately explained by the Canterbury earthquakes. In 2014 and again in 2015, UC finished in the bottom half of New Zealand universities in terms of the number of NZ Royal Society Marsden Grants awarded; Marden Grants are New Zealand's most prestigious research grants.

Daffodealio (talk) 07:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place to push your agenda. If you rewrite it from a neutral point of view, using only reliable sources, and avoiding undue weight, maybe you can come up with 2 or 3 sentences that would be appropriate to include in the article. Toohool (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Toohool (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC) :I think you’re confusing the investigative journalists and academics whose mention you’ve deleted, with my references to the reports about controversies around UC that were published by these academics and journalists. Summarizing published reports about these controversies for its readers is precisely (part of) what Wikipedia is for! I also note that you’ve specifically evaded my questions regarding any specific content that you’ve summarily deemed illegitimate or beyond the pale. Why? Why don’t you point out specific errors of fact in the section you’ve deleted (which is copied above)? I suspect it’s because there are none. If your claim is that the investigative journalists and academics you’ve now silenced here have a “point of view,” then perhaps it’s because that point of view is the point of view of the facts they’ve uncovered and the analyses they’ve published. If you don’t like it, correct the facts. Give us the links to the proper analyses that journalists and academics have published and that contest the ones you seek to censor here. Why do you deem that Wikipedia’s readers must be protected from summaries of the published facts and analyses you’ve deleted? For example, what exactly is the difference between the sentence which reads, “The suggestion has been made that staff eliminations are sometimes based on academic ideology rather than merit,” which you’ve apparently deemed acceptable for the Wikipedia page, and ANY of the references to the work of investigative journalists and academic studies that you’ve deemed unworthy and illegitimate? Why won’t you answer with specifics instead of vague demands to “rewrite” in “2 or 3 sentences”? What exactly is the basis for your assertion that the published studies and analyses referred to above will be allowed precisely “2 or 3 sentences”? This demand is arbitrary rubbish. Daffodealio (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * My reversion of your re-addition of content is not an endorsement of anything else in the article, it's just an attempt to avoid the article becoming even worse. A barrage of facts and statistics from primary sources such as newspaper editorials and investigative reports, cherry-picked to paint the school's administration in a negative light, is not the way to write a neutral article. If you genuinely want to improve the article, I would suggest you look at some of the featured articles about colleges and universities for examples. Toohool (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This objection has no pertinence whatsoever, as far as I can tell. Not one "newspaper editorial" has been cited as a source in the handful of sentences that I restored after they were deleted without adequate justification.  Nor have any statistics been added apart from those publicized on UC's own website!  Furthermore, you are clearly confused about the what it means to write from a neutral perspective, which does not, of course, equate with erasing actual facts from an account of controversies examined by investigative journalists and studies done by respected academics.  If there is language that is both true to its source and in your view needlessly slanted, then replace it with a more neutral term without censoring or distorting the source's meaning.  Writing neutrally does not mean erasing a true history of events because you don't like that history.  Nor do you have any insight into any intention to "paint" anything, despite your ridiculous claim to know my intentions.  Universities are not casinos in need of whitewashing and "image-management."  Rather, they are public institutions in need of careful public scrutiny.  If you feel the well-sourced facts included in an article don't tell some part of a story that you feel should be told, then add the well-sourced facts that do.  If you are troubled by references to studies and analyses published by respected academics, then add references to the other studies and analyses published by respected academics that reach different conclusions.  Instead, you've attempted to use bulk, wholesale deletion as a form of censorship, which is unacceptable here.  Therefore, the short section with well-sourced facts and published academic findings that you have tried to bulk-delete have now been restored to their rightful place.  Censorship, whatever the "good intentions" of the censor, is not acceptable.Daffodealio (talk) 00:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I've already identified the many policies that this content violates. You have obviously not read these policies. You can rewrite it in compliance with policy, or you can gain consensus here that it is acceptable, or you can stop adding it. Otherwise you are going to find yourself blocked soon. Toohool (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've read the policies. I've already indicated that there is no violation.  You should never have illegitimately done a wholesale reversion of my work on 10 Nov. 2015 without first even attempting to gain consensus, let alone without actually obtaining one.  A small number of reliably sourced facts telling a true history from a neutral perspective were deleted without justification.  You have tried again to delete this legitimate and reliably sourced information by claiming unjustifiably that they violate policies which they do not violate.  If you wish to continue with your illegitimate attempt to whitewash the page, gain consensus before you delete reliably sourced facts related from a neutral perspective.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daffodealio (talk • contribs) 00:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Daffodealio (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The institution is 150 years old, yet you want the bulk of the article text to cover the events of the last 5 years? I think you need to re-examine your motivations for participating. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * This seems to me like a very misplaced objection. The vast bulk of the article deals with other parts of the history of the university.  One small section discusses a number of very prominent public controversies investigated by respected academics and respected investigative journalists over the course of a decade or so.  It rather concerns me what your motivations might be.Daffodealio (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment the text appears to given some weight to the university's defense, but on the whole it does seem to be slightly negative. This by itself does not warrant the deletion of the whole text and can be fixed by minor edits. However, the major problem is that it goes into excessive details and the sources used are not the best. Maybe this is to be expected when researching non-notable details. I think the whole section needs to be trimmed down. I this is a good starting point for Daffodealio to start from. In the interests of article stability, perhaps Daffodealio can list each sentence on the talk page intended to be added and the reason why it should be added. Please remember not to go into excessive details.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  00:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm sorry, but as I've noted above, this began with my contribution of reliably sourced information to a short section of a long article covering the entire history of this university. This short section, by contrast with the very elaborate remainder of this long article, deals with a number of highly public controversies that were investigated by well-respected academics and well-respected investigative journalists.  Suddenly, without adequate justification or even any attempt to gain consensus, Toohool quickly reverted my work, and has since been working very hard to police this very short section, repeatedly committing censorious bulk deletions each time one attempts to restore reliably-sourced information to the record.  I can only guess at his motivations for policing this section so intensively.  Nevertheless, the burden of proof is on the original source of the reversion, Toohool, to identify, sentence by sentence, exactly what his issue is with the well-sourced facts included in a very short section dealing with very prominent public controversies. Daffodealio (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Fully protected
Hi everyone. Due to an ongoing edit war, I've protected this article for a couple of weeks. Please discuss the dispute here on the talk page, or use available dispute resolution venues such as WP:3O (for two-editor disputes only), WP:DRN (for more complex situations), and finally, WP:MEDCOM (for the most complex situations, when all other attempts to resolve the dispute have failed). As an absolutely final, last resort, and only for the most complex disputes (especially if editor conduct starts to become an issue, rather than simply content), there is WP:ARBCOM. Thank you, and keep in mind that I've protected the page in an attempt to encourage discussion and not favor any "side" in any way. -- Biblio worm  01:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * At the risk of stepping on your toes here, I've blocked Daffodealio for being a POV-pushing only account and reverted the material they'd edit warred back in. I'd removed much of this material (with my admin hat on) earlier this year for being an obvious POV mess, and I'd note that it's also legally problematic given that some of it accuses the management of this university of acting improperly based on weak referencing or references which don't support the claims which were being made at all. I'd suggest that the protection could be lifted now, and that this be treated as an editor conduct issue rather than a content dispute. Nick-D (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've come here to suggest that the protection be removed again as the 'reason' for it has just banned.  Schwede 66  04:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If the user has a history of sockpuppeting and mainly edits this article, semi-protection may help.  Jolly  Ω   Janner  04:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I also think semi-protection would be adequate.- gadfium 05:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed the protection. If socking becomes an issue, semi-protection can be requested at RFPP. (Pages aren't protected preemptively.) I wasn't aware of all the details surrounding the dispute and was simply interested in stopping the edit war to encourage dispute resolution, not getting involved or taking "sides". -- Biblio worm  05:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The current article is a bit rubbish and I've been put off in the past by the articles' history of edit wars. I'm seriously thinking of doing a complete rewrite (with help from selected other editors) and then doing a requested move of the new article over this one (would that be the procedure?). Modelled on University of Oxford and completely devoid of lists. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. A move over this article would have the benefit of erasing the material currently in its history. Thanks for lifting the protection Biblioworm. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ,, , , , , I have created Draft:University of Canterbury and all are welcome to jump in and start editing. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Change to images of alumni
I noticed that the notable alumni section had four pictures of male graduates, and added to the other images of males on this page it seemed to appear rather gender-skewed! I've added Eleanor Catton's image, and replaced Tong with Beatrice Tinsley, so now there are three males to two females in that section. MurielMary (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on University of Canterbury. 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/20150119210953/http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2014.html to http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2014.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Rendering of arms
The main part of the arms should be coloured murrey, a "stain", which should be rendered as a dark purplish "mulberry" colour.

In RGB, theres a few options for how this could be rendered:

but... yet... Not really a major issue of course. Snori (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 144-45-71 as currently
 * 132-47-70 is what the official University of Canterbury colour guide says should be used.
 * 93-5-15 is what's used on the official website

Adding Colleges of the University of Canterbury to Governance
G'day all just want a consensus on whether should add this small table to the 'Governance' section. It is similar to that of other Universities and UC is the only NZ University not displaying its faculties/colleges.


 * Kia ora, that seems like a good idea to me to be added. — NZFC  (talk) (cont)  08:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding in a residential halls section

 * Hi there just another addition, want a consensus around re-adding back in the halls of residence section at this stage it would look along these lines:

Student accommodation at the University of Canterbury consists of five halls of residence exclusively for first year undergraduate students, and five other self-catered student accommodation houses which are home to both undergraduate and postgraduate students, with College house being the oldest residential college in New Zealand.
 * Halls of Residence
 * Bishop Julius Hall (Arcady Hall)
 * College House
 * Rochester and Rutherford
 * Tupuānuku
 * University Hall
 * Other student Accomodation
 * Sonoda Christchurch Campus
 * Hayashi (formerly Dovedale)
 * Kirkwood Avenue
 * Waimairi Village
 * Ilam Apartments


 * Also happy with this! — NZFC  (talk) (cont)  08:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Reverting some Edits by NZFC
Hi, all as you know NZFC majorly cleaned up the University of Canterbury page. Some edits were needed and I concede that new citations and references are needed. However my intentions were true in editing this page as it looked bare and needed a change. Here are some proposals:
 * Firstly I'd like a consensus on restoring the old Notable People page, as there was nothing wrong with it to begin and it was far better IMHO than the one NZFC change it to.
 * Secondly I'd like a consensus on introducing a new Halls of Residence page, along the lines of other universities. This would include fully referenced information from third parties.
 * Thirdly a revamp of the Student Culture Section with full referenced information that is not advertising, or just reverting to the orginal Student Culture page.
 * Finally some new images are definitely needed to be added, so please to the community if you have an images of the University of Canterbury upload them. MitchellMatchbox (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I will comment a couple of things, first under Notable it appears that MitchellMatchbox prefers a look that is on the Harvard University article which I will note is also tagged for contains an unencyclopedic or excessive gallery of images. I've seen more that have the current look and it was how it looked before. What decides some are more notable that others to have the criteria like it was changed too. I am all for the pictures of some people in there, but don't feel it should be anything more than the list it really is.
 * I'm not against having hall of residence again, but before it was just basically a list of each hall and what they offered and was only reference to the university own page. People aren't coming to Wikipedia article to find out about the halls at Canterbury, if they are looking at halls and which ones to choose, they would go to the University own website. I don't believe it can be referenced with much else and don't think it is needed just because its on other articles.
 * Not against a revamp of the student culture section either but again it was filled with fluff on what they offered and did in things like O week and in the clubs, not really encyclopaedic material. — NZFC  (talk) (cont)  23:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that NZFC is on the money in terms of what layout and WP:MOS stuff. I'm aware that at least two of the halls of residence have book-length histories, so in theory articles are possible (including those which are no longer extant), but I will personally burn to the ground any articles based on recent websites or marketing. Note that you can create a list of any well-defined non-inflammatory set of articles, so List of University of Canterbury alumni is there for the making. Similarly with student stuff: I'm open to an almost infinite amount of this, but only based on decent sources. When / if the article gets too large if can be broken up, starting by breaking out lists to individual pages and replacing them with well-sourced text summarizing the trends. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * See also things like List of honorary doctors of the University of Canterbury (which I created). Stuartyeates (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to comment on what NZFC and also Stuartyeates said. Regarding the idea about the notable Alumni - the Harvard page contains a 30 picture gallery and I understand that is an excessive gallery of images however I would only propose a much smaller 18 picture gallery or smaller. Also saying "[I] don't feel it should be anything more than the list it really is." is not quite a consensus but ones opinion to change the notable alumni page to its current state from its former state. Also I would like some clarification on what is and isn't "encyclopaedic material" as I was under the impression it was just indepth knowledge of a topic or sub-topic(s). Cheers, for the feedback, however I would like some help in implementing instead of another user acting as an authority, to which ever other users are beholden to. Instead of saying no your edits are wrong, how about working around what new edits were made and help the page, not hinder it. MitchellMatcbox (talk) 04:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * MitchellMatcbox please read BOLD, revert, discuss. So the page originally had the Alumni as a list, you were bold and changed it to the one with the image that you thought looked good. Others disagree with you (myself and Stuartyeates) and it was reverted back to the previous version. It is changing current state, my revert was the one that put it back to the current state and also the more common state for University pages. Now I'm not the authority but I do disagree with your edits and its up to you to gain consensus, welcome to editing on Wikipedia, it can be frustrating at times when you feel like you are in the right or you think you are working against a brick wall. Also for Encyclopaedic material, please read here. — NZFC  (talk) (cont)  06:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "More common state for University pages" I completely disagree with this statement, after just looking at several Highy prestigous Universities, including Texas, Washington, Harvard, Cornell, UC Berkeley, Florida etc all have a gallery style alumni sections now again I'm asking to revert the section back to its original form as it was by no means excessive, also I do not understand why the small description at the beginning was removed as well, as it was referenced, not biased in the slightest and again several far more prestigious universities do it. MitchellMatcbox (talk) 06:35:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * User:MitchellMatchbox it doesn't matter what "several far more prestigious universities" do. What matters is what Manual of Style says and what the local consensus is. As I said above, I'm pretty sure that NZFC is on the money in terms of what layout and WP:MOS stuff. You're welcome to appeal to New_Zealand_Wikipedians%27_notice_board again, but I'm pretty confident that they'll agree with NZFC and I. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * By all means the consensus was that my edits originally were fine, Schwede66 was checking my edits and vetting them, until you both came along an took issue with the article. I would be happy to concede that what you choose to do was necessary, however neither of you are frequent contributors to the University of Canterbury page and Stuartyeates should not be counted in the consensus as he has a clear COI. Again I am going to reaffirm, please make some significant contributions to the page instead of acting as do-gooder administrators. Whether editing in Wikipedia is hard or "can be frustrating at times" I do not care, work with me not against me - as IMHO the state of this page before was absolutely poor, out of date and not up to the standards set out by Wikipedia. Cheers. MitchellMatcbox (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that I'm mentioned by name, I should comment. My focus is currently on the Olympics. Yes, I did may a few tweaks. But your changes came thick and fast and given that I'm otherwise occupied, I did not check what was going on for the bigger issues discussed above. I sometimes make small tweaks as a way to guide new (or newish) editors with not introducing mistakes (content or style) without paying too much intention on the direction that an article takes. And that describes my input in this case, too.  Schwede 66  09:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * University of Canterbury Coat of Arms.png

New Content Needs to be added
Hi, everyone. I am on here asking the community that we introduce a section under campuses as relating to the Teece Museum of classical antiquities - this would go into depth the James Logie Memorial collection and the Universities relation to the Canterbury Museum, Christchurch which was created by Julius Von Haast a former faculty member. As well adding a completely new section entitled "Popular culture" which could go in to depth about the Parker–Hulme murder case which occurred at the Ilam Homestead on the university of campus and was then adapted into the movie Heavenly Creatures MitchellMatchbox (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with it if its relevant information to the university but not if its really about something else associated with the university that isn't notable enough for its own article. Will also need to be well sourced.— NZFC  (talk) (cont)  12:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)