Talk:University of Split

Faculty
I removed the faculty figure (11) from the infobox. Faculty in this sense means the number of staff, rather than the number of faculties (see, for example, London School of Economics). Cordless Larry 20:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Unisp.gif
Image:Unisp.gif 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo
The building in the picture is NOT the Faculty of Philosophy. Now, I know that noone is going to notice this, so I'll change it myself or something. Zhelja (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

FESB merge discussion
There was a discussion at Articles for deletion/Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Split where the closing admin decided that there was consensus to merge that article here. I don't agree with that assessment, not merely on the merits, but on the reading of the discussion. In any event, can someone who does support that idea try to do it, or at least lay out an explanation of the sectioning of this article should that be done? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)