Jump to content

Talk:University of Oxford

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bluap (talk | contribs) at 03:43, 21 August 2016 (Revert undo. While POV, the main gist of this is factually correct. While it doesn't really have a place of a talk page, I think it doesn't harm). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleUniversity of Oxford has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 15, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 8, 2007Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Template:Vital article


Thresholds for selecting "notable" alumni & media featuring Oxford

I'm not sure if it's appropriate to add so many names and photos of Oxonian there as we do have a main page for this section. Besides, the list (without any citation) in the "Oxford in literature and other media" part seems a bit redundant. I'd like to know the thresholds for selecting those "notable examples" to be added here. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 06:15, 6 May 2015‎

I agree that this is a problem, but it's difficult to give a formal threshold beyond "I'll know it when I see it". The number of pictures introduced in the edit by PonyMaster [1] was ridiculous, but the subsequent edit by Kiki 233 [2] reduced things to a level which I though was just about acceptable, though still on the high side. The "Oxford in literature and other media" part has just got ridiculous, and at least half of these should go. I'll have a go at trimming that. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Bearing in mind that the article on the university existed long before the separate list was created, would it not be acceptable simply to cross-refer? It's inconceivable that anyone will ever appear on the list in this article without also being in the other article Deb (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, consistency is crucial, so are conciseness and preciseness. Some university articles (like that of Cambridge) have (redundantly) exhaustive details and photos added everywhere which, in my opinion, are messy. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 12:10, 8 May 2015‎
I have cut Oxford in literature and other media/Other notable examples from 42 entries right down to 9. I think that's a big improvement, and now about the right length, but I wouldn't be strongly opposed to complete deletion. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that looks better now. I hope this GA can persist with its conciseness and preciseness with well-sourced, clear and readable content. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 12:10, 8 May 2015‎

I'd be in favour of removing completely the literature and other media section. -- Fluteflute Talk Contributions 14:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having thought more about this, I would be happy to have the section cut down to just the opening paragraph and the cross reference, i.e. removing the list entirely, but I wouldn't favour deleting the section entirely. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More thought would be quite justified, e.g. Bradley's Mr. Verdant Green was long considered an Oxford Classic; The History Boys is about getting into Oxford not about being there. The nineteenth century is particularly rich; the twenty-first distinctly less.In any case a more pluralistic approach (in this) and other matters is needed ----Clive Sweeting 14September2015

I see that PonyMaster is back adding photographs again. The gallery format is better than just scattering them all over the article, but do these pictures really add anything here? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No! Most are of colleges and they could be on the specific college articles, if they are not already. Some are not very good photographs. I suggest the gallery be deleted. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford has so many alumni that such photos can be limitless. I think it looks quite messy as they're added here and there. Maybe, we can just retain those who have higher popularity or are more recognizable (relatively not absolutely) so as to attract more attention. If the readers are so interested in their faces, the corresponding main pages or Wiki Commons will be a good place. But here photos are just additional elements to boost the zest. In dialogue with Biomedicinal 07:28, 16 May 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
I had a bit of a think about this, and came to the conclusion that we should either delete all the alumni pictures, or possibly only include pictures that are clearly set in Oxford (which I think is none of the current ones, so these two options come to much the same thing in practice). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with that. Pictures help to make the page look more attractive. I just disagree with gallerias. However it would be great to have some that are clearly set in Oxford and these should replace existing ones. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on University of Oxford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admissions graph

In a recent edit [3] Absolutelypuremilk added a graph showing the fraction of students admitted from state schools. No source was given for the data. Does this constitute original research? Or am I worrying too much? The same graph was also added at University of Cambridge and at Oxbridge. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The references were in the graph (if you clicked on "more details") but I have added them to the articles as well to avoid confusion. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 17:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did check the graph, but mysteriously failed to see them, but anyway they definitely belong in the main article. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago I removed the logo from the article, pointing out that the SVG image shows the Latin inscription as DOMINUS ILLVMINATIO MEA, including inconsistent use of U and V, while the official logo uses V consistently (DOMINVS ILLVMINATIO MEA), so the SVG image unfairly makes the university look sloppy. Somebody (editing from an IP) has restored it without giving a reason or addressing these concerns. I stand by this specific concern, but it turns out that, worse than that, there is no evidence that the multi-colour logo is actually officially used by the university at all. The purported source, even under "colour" (page 8), allows only for a plain white shield on "university blue" background. The file history contains a valid observation from user "Governor Jerjerrod", that the SVG version is just an artist's impression, although it is wrong to state that the version with blue on white (i.e. reversed colours) is official, indeed it is given as an example in page 19 of the source of an incorrect version ("Do not change the colour, tint/fade or create outline versions of the logo.") This being the case, the logo as presented is unsourced and incorrect, and there are no correct versions in the file history to go back to. So I will again remove the logo from the article. Sorry to deprive the artist of an outlet for his/her artistic impression, but this is not the place for it. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC) P.S. page numbers of the PDF file mentioned above are per the written labels rather than the page numbers in the PDF.[reply]


Actually I would go further and say, I don't see the benefit in creating an SVG at all (assuming that an official PNG file of reasonable resolution can be found). Either it is legally permissible to use the official logo, taking into account copyright and trademark law, or it isn't. If it is, then it should just be uploaded. Or if it isn't legal, then I can't see how merely changing the file format (even to a format which requires skill to create rather than just an automated conversion) would somehow make these legal issues go away. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The university shield is not copyrighted or otherwise legally controlled and exists in many forms that vary in details. The belted crest is a more recent creation and is copyrighted. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response.

  • I think the primary question needs to be what is the factually correct up-to-date logo of the university. What seems clear from the university's official website is that the current official logo is the belted crest, and one that is strict as regards colour scheme, namely a simple two-colour white on blue. Also the wording has "V" in both "DOMINVS" and "ILLVMINATIO", as seen in the document on branding, which shows the logo large enough to see this. Neither of the users who restored the multi-colour version of the crest have offered any source to support it having official status. What you say about the shield is interesting, particularly if it exists in many forms, but if the belted crest is more recent then I think all the more reason to need a source that establishes that the shield retains co-official status and has not simply been superseded. (If there has been some rebranding, then previous logos could be discussed in the article if the topic of the rebranding is worthy of a mention.)
  • A subsidiary question exists as to whether the factually correct logo is legally usable. Maybe it is usable under some fair dealings provision despite its copyright status, but I am not a lawyer. I see that currently the article already contains a version of this, and for now I will move it to the top of the article to replace the multi-colour crest. Personally I would not take responsibility for uploading it, but that rests with whoever did so. If it turns out that it needs to be removed for copyright reasons but that any replacement would be factually inaccurate, then the correct response is not to include any at all, given that the purpose of the article is to provide encyclopaedic information rather than to look pretty.

Regards, --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correction - I not going to move the existing logo (the "University of Oxford.svg" file, which includes the name of the university as well as the crest) as the "logo" tag is set up to put it in a particular place, separate from the "image" tag. But this is still not a justification for putting a factually incorrect version of the logo under "image". If people want the belted crest in the position where the current multi-colour one is, then it should be the one which currently forms part of the "University of Oxford.svg" file, and it would be a relatively simple matter with an SVG editor to extract it into a separate file. However, I personally do not wish to take legal responsibility for doing so, so somebody else can do this if they want it and are prepared to do so. -- Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The shield is the coat of arms of the University of Oxford and like any coat of arms there is no such thing as an official version: the blazon can be interpreted in any way which is heraldically correct. The belted crest is the former logo of the university and has over time existed in a range of forms. The current logo of the university is the simple blue and white logo incorporating a version of the belted crest, and is used under the same fair use criteria as the logo of any other organisation (such use on organisation pages is very common). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, thank you. On that basis, putting the shield there makes good sense, which I see that you have now already done. I would still be unhappy with the multicolour version of the belted crest for reasons discussed (the inconsistent "U" and "V" issue, and that the reasoning for there being no official version presumably does not extend to the belted crest - correct?) --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. The unversity gets very upset if you try to modify the blue and white logo in any way, but has no control over depictions of the shield. The multi coloured belted crest is a bit of a half way house, but both the shield and the logo are better alternatives for different purposes so there's really no reason to use it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fake, Fraudulent, "£10 Mail Order" MA degrees from Oxford

The University of Oxford offers undergraduate degrees of three years duration, in which the student is examined for parts one and two of the Tripos. On successful completion they are awarded a BA degree. Quite often courses offer an optional part three course Tripos which takes a further year.

Following the BA, students may then enrole to take a masters degree eg M.Phil, M.Litt, M.Sc etc, as at other Universities, or indeed a doctorate D.Phil for example. However no MA degree is offered.

The MA at Oxford is awarded after paying a small admin charge (is £10), 21 terms after matriculation (age 25), with no extra work, study or research. This status allows certain rights, for example walking across the grass in the quad and wearing a fancy gown.

Officially it is not a degree and yet graduates in receipt of this "MA" place it on their CV and or buisness card. The letters MA stand for Master of Arts.

Many people consider this to be a medieval nonsense and worse, fake and fraudulent. Fake, since it pretends to be something that it is not. Fraudulent, since it misrepresents the achedemic achievement of the holder. The MP Chris Leslie has tried to make this practice illegal, via a ten min. rule bill in the commons, without success.

Philip C Robinson M.Sc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.72.252.35 (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Oxford&oldid=735494192"