Talk:University of Copenhagen Faculty of Science

These are all stub articles representing departments within the Faculty of Science. With the possible exception of the computer science department, none of the other pages has enough unique content to justify a separate existence. Even if content were added, that would not improve the problem because these articles would still seem to violate WP:NOT a website for the University of Copenhagen's science department. Thatcher131 08:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. I think a reasearch center within a university can be notable enough to have its own article. I like the current format of many articles. Thue | talk 21:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * At least the Niels Bohr institute is extremely notable in its own right. Thue | talk 21:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No pages link to it except for University of Copenhagen pages. If it was merged, the original page would stay as a redirect, and if someone wanted to write a better article they could easily undo the merge. Thatcher131 04:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The Niels Bohr Institute already has its own separate page. Recommend merging this page into the faculty of science page and then using the faculty of science page to link back to the Niels Bohr Institute. Thatcher131 02:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * On January 15, 2006, user:Ceyockey recommended merging Bioinformatics Centre, a department in the University of Copenhagen Faculty of Science back with the main page.  I decided to nominate merging all the other sub-departments back into the main article, as they are all stubs, and none of them, with the possible exception of the Niels Bohr institute, assert independent notability.  They also don't have any incoming links except from the University of Copenhangen wiki articles.  The only comment was from the author of the pages, who objected.  I don't really care enough to force the issue, so I'm going to remove all the merge tags and let someone else deal with it in the future if someone comes along who cares more than I do. Thatcher131 21:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sigilum Facultatis Naturalis.JPG
Image:Sigilum Facultatis Naturalis.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Clumsy
This edit adds more dates, but they are not chronological (in sequence). Plus, it is written as sentences and not a flowing paragraph. Can someone improve, perhaps user:Athanasios.syrakis?Lucas559 (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)