This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Sydney / Education Low‑importance Tharunka 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Sydney (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Newspapers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers 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.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

• Joestella has proposed merging Blitz into this article. I believe that Blitz should be kept separate from Tharunka as they are separate publications, and if they were to be covered on the same page, then the page should be broadened to Student newspapers at UNSW or something similar. Having one publication redirected to the other would have people believe they are the same publication and considering the amount of student media already covered on Wikipedia, I think Blitz warrants an article, given it has been running for over ten years now, has more than just "what's on" and is certainly more prevalent on the UNSW campus these days than Tharunka. Certainly if all else fails, than both articles (Tharunka and Blitz) should be merged into the Arc @ UNSW page similar to what is being proposed for the previous organisations pages at the moment (Talk here).Oppose merge CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 17:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge - Blitz fails WP:V. alexis+kate=? 01:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, when I created the full list of student newspapers I only included the Tharunka-style ones from other campuses - ie student newspapers that exist mainly as a showcase of student writing/journalism. Blitz is a what's on with a few CD reviews. If you doubt it, download one from the Arc website.
  • And maybe Blitz should redirect to Arc.alexis+kate=? 01:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fail to see how Blitz fails WP:V. Blitz also does three to four articles a week in addition to a What's On guide included in the magazine. Here is an external reference to Blitz on the university's A - Z Guide which I'll include on the page now. CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 02:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Chanlord. Using common sense, I don't really see what's to be gained from this merge? Recurring dreams 11:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge By merge, of course, I pretty much mean delete. The Tharunka and Arc @ UNSW pages should (as now) mention Blitz's existence. But detail of the sort in the Blitz (magazine) article is overkill. UNSW webpages are not reliable third-party publications, since Arc, Blitz's publisher, is owned by UNSW. As Alexis+kate notes, Blitz clearly fails WP:V ... and WP:CORP as well. alexis+kate=? 12:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • <UNSW does not own Arc. It is a separate and autonomous organisation from the university. I don't see the issue in having a separate article for Blitz when so many other student publications exist on Wikipedia (in fact shorter stubs created by yourself, such as Independent Student Magazine, are smaller and less note-worthy than Blitz and with no verifiable sources). I merely ask for some consistency when it comes to the inclusion of student newspaper in Wikipedia as you seem to have drawn some arbitrary line. Also, to suggest that Blitz is not student written or journalism is not accurate. They have two casual student writers for the magazine employed each year and the editor is also a student. They also publish student contributed articles and reviews. CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 18:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not true. Arc @ UNSW Limited is an Australian Public Company, whose shareholder is the University of New South Wales. Though the uni lets some students sit on the board, it remains a subsidiary of the uni. Joestella 03:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Joe, do not strike out my own words thank you very much. Arc @ UNSW is effectively a separate organisation no matter who is the sole shareholder. UNSW has no direct control over it. That being said, the same could be argued against Tharunka's inclusion, since they are now both published by the same organisation. 58.110.98.230 08:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And feel free to sling around as many AfD noms as you think are warranted. Be bold! CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 17:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Chanlord, have you declared your interest as a volunteer for the organisation publishing Blitz? And I don't know who Recurring Dreams is, but s/he is a UNSW student and therefore may also have a conflict of interest.alexis+kate=? 12:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I volunteer and have previously worked at the Arc, as have a lot of other students at UNSW. Are you suggesting that if you are in some way connected to the subject of an article than you cannot edit it? Where would it stop? Can I edit articles about the university? Sydney? Australia? Looking through WP:COI, it says '"Editors who may have a conflict of interest are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest, but must be careful when editing in mainspace."' It does not say my opinion accounts for less or should be disregarded. I have not made any COI or POV edits to the main article, as all the edits are merely factual in nature. CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 18:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• lol, Kate already voted here. We agree on this though.alexis+kate=? 12:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, given you have one account, you can't really vote twice. CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 18:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• My three suggestions are:
  • Leave the 'Blitz' article as is (without merging)
  • Merge Tharunka and Blitz into a new article entitled Student media at UNSW or something similar and redirect both to that
  • Merge all student newspapers and magazine published by student organisations with their student organisation's article

- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 18:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge Tom, you are trying really hard to avoid the removal of a separate Blitz article. But let's face the facts. Blitz is just an in-house newsletter for an organisation with which you are intimately involved. Tharunka - along with many other genuine student newspapers - is a decades-old campus institution with famous former editors (even if we don't count me) and third-party sources to back up claims of notability. Joestella 03:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny. Tharunka has next to no external references either. CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 17:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge - if Blitz does not deserve its own page, why on earth merge the contents into a page entitled Tharunka?
• I may go to unsw, I don't think that egregiously violates WP:COI. I live in Australia and edit Australia related pages. So?
• We do not vote, we develop consensus.
• Good to see you back Joe. Recurring dreams 03:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying Blitz doesn't deserve mention - at both the Tharunka and Arc pages. But it is non-notable: there are still no third-party references for it. And though you may wish to keep your identities secret Recurring dreams and Alexis+kate, you should at least declare if you are Arc volunteers/staff or current or former Blitz contributors/staff. Joestella 03:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improved. Also, if merged in what context will Blitz be discussed? And where will the redirect go? I'm not involved in these student publications in any way. In fact I never really read them. Recurring dreams 07:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I have already done so. And if our interests are relevant to the debate, than you should declare your own Joe, in that you are a former editor of Tharunka and still seem to have a grudge against 'Blitz' to this day. All I ask is for some consistency when it comes to the inclusion of student publications. Leave as it, merge into one article (as student media at UNSW), or merge with the student organisation page. CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 17:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tharunka. 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/20070105194634/http://www.source.unsw.edu.au/vsureport/Report_OHalloran.pdf to http://www.source.unsw.edu.au/vsureport/Report_OHalloran.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]