Talk:University of Cambridge/Archive 2

message: Re:  01:57, 19 January 2006 edit by Stephen Turner: if being "non-obscure" is a criterion for inclusion in this list, then it opens it up to all sorts of interpretation. For example, the Hawks' Club, with a larger and more obvious presence in Cambridge than the Pitt Club, could be said to be less obscure than that club. However, the Pitt Club does epitomise some of the stereotypes that Cambridge is known for (not that the Hawks' Club doesn't...), so may produce more interesting reading for the layperson. I agree that college societies should not appear on this list unless there is a very good reason for it, so the Henry Jackson Society doesn't really belong there - in my four years at Cambridge I did not hear of it: the only one on the list I had not. Perhaps it would be more sensible to produce a new page listing all societies and sports teams that now have a wikipedia page, and link to it below the link to the University website listing? There are enough of them listed in Category:University of Cambridge and its subcategories to warrant a page listing them sectioned by type. I will see if I can put one together. Rmbyoung 11:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough - I left in 2005, which is probably why I hadn't heard of it until now. Rmbyoung 14:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criteria for inclusion in the "Societies and leisure activities" list

message: Another question about the lists at the bottom. What do people think about having redlinks in them? I removed a redlink from the "organisations and institutions" and someone put it back saying that redlinks are useful. I agree that redlinks are useful within the text of articles, but it somehow doesn't seem right to me in one of those lists. What do other people think? Keep it, delete it, or replace it with an external link to the organisation's home page?
Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redlink in "organisations and institutions" 

message: I found the history section awkwardly worded and hard to follow in places.  I took the liberty of rewording for clarity.  Though I added no new information, I did remove several references to Oxford that I found rather peculiar given that this is an article about Cambridge.  Rklawton 23:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't understand.  This is an article about Cambridge.  I'm glad to hear about the rivalry article.  If one didn't exist, I would have suggested one.  I recommend letting the Cambridge article focus on Cambridge and explore the rivalries in detail elswhere.  In short, I don't think diluting the Cambridge article helps explain Cambridge much - unless Cambridge's claim to fame is "we're not Osford" (and no, I don't think that's the case).  Cambridge has a great story to tell and the "we're not Oxford" comparisons detract from it.  Rklawton 23:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There seems to be an underlying assumption from some earlier editors that readers will be familiar with the system at Oxford but not at Cambridge. I don't see any basis for that assumption. Stephen Turner (Talk) 07:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: I'd like to suggest eliminating the "general information" header and moving the content up to the top.  Doing so would provide a better screen layout for the article.
: I like the header!! There should be simple ways to fix the text layout without eliminating the header. Bwithh 04:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The screen layout looks fine at a display resolution of 800x600.  66.99.172.59 19:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General Information

message: Do you agree that its associations belong in the lead?
Here are some suggestions for improvement:
1)  Provide a comprehensive list of notable alumni that groups by respective field of contribution.
2)  Expand history section; there is a very rich, interesting history.
3)  Delete following line, which, besides being disjointed and awkward, does nothing more than perpetuate a stereotype: "In addition to a long tradition in the humanities, the University of Cambridge is especially known for producing a number of prominent scientists. This distinguished list includes Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin, William Harvey, Paul Dirac, J. J. Thomson, Ernest Rutherford, James Clerk Maxwell, James D. Watson, Francis Crick, and Alan Turing."
4)  Explain how the University functions in greater detail, as the model it operates under is unfamiliar to most Americans.
5)  Include a section that would address rankings and Noble Prize count.  
6)  Include an aerial photograph or map of the campus to give perspective.
7)  Give greater purpose to introductory paragraphs.
Upon reflection, I have come to realize that I was rude in my comments, and for that I apologize.  Courier new 04:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your suggestions sound great; I'm personally neutral toward having the associations in the lead paragraph. I think the list of notable alumni can definitely be improved.. i would say that we shouldn't make it 'comprehensive' in the sense of the List of University of Cambridge people, but we should certainly make it more comprehensible.. maybe by making it into a table with information like college, date of birth, date of death, and subject / reason for notability, similar to the alumni table found at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. I think having dates will help in showing the university has had notable alumni throughout it's history. Mlm42 09:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for Improvement 

message: Strangely, its stopped working on my browsers (both Firefox and IE) tonight - there's just a blank space with a vertical line).
I thought it might be recent edits of mine, but I looked at versions from several days ago in the history, and theres the same problem. Maybe just my machine? Bwithh 07:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It happens here on Opera too. --Dave ~ (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still having problems with the coat of arms image (Appears as blank space with a gray vertical line sort of in the middle), even with the McDell PC at work. The actual page for the image file when I click on it is absolutely fine. Are Dave and I in the minority, or are others seeing this issue too? (fyi, the  first time i had this problem, i tried replacing the code for the image placement with a version from a much older article version, but this did not solve anything) Bwithh 16:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm seeing it too. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ... and strangely, I'm also seeing it with all old versions of the page, but the image itself doesn't seem to have changed recently either. Stephen Turner (Talk) 16:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps the cause is recent changes to the [Infobox University] template? Changes were made March 1st... although the University of Oxford Infobox seems to be working fine. Bwithh 16:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I get the problem as well (IE).  One difference between the template usage in Oxford than Cambridge is that Cambridge re-size the image, while Oxford don't.  I'm raising the issue at the technical section of the Village Pump. Bluap 17:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible problem with coat of arms image

message: from dictionary.com:
Usage Note: In writing, the form a is used before a word beginning with a consonant sound, regardless of its spelling (a frog, a university). The form an is used before a word beginning with a vowel sound (an orange, an hour). ·An was once a common variant before words beginning with h in which the first syllable was unstressed; thus 18th-century authors wrote either a historical or an historical but a history, not an history. This usage made sense in that people often did not pronounce the initial h in words such as historical and heroic, but by the late 19th century educated speakers usually pronounced initial h, and the practice of writing an before such words began to die out. Nowadays it survives primarily before the word historical. One may also come across it in the phrases an hysterectomy or an hereditary trait. These usages are acceptable in formal writing.
Bwithh 16:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "an" comes across as very antiquated to me. I'm sure "a" is much more common now, even in formal writing. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "an historical" or "a historical"?

message: :::Wouldn't creating a category (no need to reference "famous", etc.) for Cambridge Alumni solve our problem?  A category has several advantages.  Alumni names won't clutter up the Cambridge article.  Second, any alumni worthy of an article in Wikipedia makes the list.  Lastly, the Cambridge article editors won't have to moderate the "who is worthy" debate.  Instead, the debate opend up to the entire Wikipedia community with regard to the candidate's article-worthiness.  By comparison, I do believe a list of Cambridge Nobel Prize Winners is appropriate within the Cambridge article.  List membership isn't subject to debate, and it effectively illustrates the school's merits.  Rklawton 22:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alumni 

message: :* That's fine with me, too, but I think there should be at least some explanatory text to indicate why people might be interested in following the link. Furthermore, Bwithh has put the new page up for deletion, so it may go away entirely. I mentioned in one of my edit summaries that an acquaintance had quit his PhD in the Zoology department in part because they would not let him use ssh. Wikipedia could help avoid this sort of wasted effort by informing people of potential problems in the first instance. However, information summarizing network restrictions or comparing Cambridge colleges is not likely to appear on any Cambridge-based websites.
::Network and computing capabilities are highly rated in selection preferences.  Most students want high-speed access, and not all schools uniformly provide this at present.  As a result, the information will be useful for the time being.  However, there may come a time when network access becomes taken for granted, much like electricity.  You won't see any references to first-world schools to the effect that their campus is "fully electrified."  Do we make reference to it here?  The question becomes a matter of utility.  If Cambridge maintains this information online, then we should point to it.  If not, then we should maintain it here as it is clearly useful.  Rklawton 23:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unfortunately useful information is not the same as encyclopedic information... Bluap 23:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campus Networking 

message: This is a pretty fine article.  Given that University of Oxford is currently (although rather unsuccessfully) on WP:FAC, I assume that we are aiming for there too? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like it as a long-term goal (and likewise for Cambridge).  However, I think that the article has a fair way to go before it reaches featured status. Bluap 15:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think a big area to do is having more references and proper footnotes. The last university I remember as successful FA was University of Michigan I think. Also, why is this page categorized (on the talk page) as both a good article and an article needing cleanup? Also, probably peripheral to FAC but one of these days, I'd like to start sorting the huge list of scientists, mathematicians and technologists on the extensive alumni list into subdisciplines.... (and have little summary lines for all entries) Bwithh 15:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because Good Article is completely meaningless and anyone can slap it on any article they feel like? Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC

message: I read an article in the South China Morning Post on the recent Hong Kong Cambridge alumni event that Louis Cha (Jinyong), the most famous living Chinese writer (and once voted in a survey in China as the second most influential Chinese writer in the 20th century) (and he i has also been  a famous newspaper editor) is currently a doctoral student at Cambridge. This would make him Cambridge's most famous (by far) active student as well as possibly the oldest.
Unfortunately the SCMP story does not seem to be online - but I confirmed it through a couple of other links -
http://www.newsgd.com/culture/art/200506230034.htm (story of Cha wanting to be a student at Cambridge)
http://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/johnian/events/regional/ (john's link indicating Cha is a current student)
Cha is surely famous enough to be on the main list. Bwithh 16:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately adding Cha has screwed up the double listing in the section. not sure how to fix that - can someone take a look? thanksBwithh 17:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you very much Bwithh 17:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Jinyong|Louis Cha]]

message: The article formerly at Cambridge University Lightweight Rowing Club has just been merged into University of Cambridge#Sports and other extracurricular activities, after a merge-to notice had been on the first article for three months without any complaint (or assent).  I think this material should be moved back out to its own article for the following reasons:
# to give it room for its own expansion
# to avoid the slippery slope of the inclusion of every other equally notable university sports club (and there are would be several)
# to avoid its subjct matter becoming lost as a minor part of a university-wide article
Any thoughts? Aquilina 20:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree; in fact I've reverted it. It's far too much detail for the main article on the university, and the categories that came along with it are inappropriate. And a notification about the proposed merge should have been placed here. Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no problems with that, I just moved it because of the notice and no complaints within that three month period. (Flymeoutofhere 09:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I guess nobody's watching that page... Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CULRC

message: *I suggest that recent addition Esquire Bedell be removed from the list of Cambridge traditions as
it is not specific to Cambridge, or to Oxbridge or to "Doxbridge" (Durham +Oxbridge).
It has been argued that Chancellors and professors and Formal Halls are not specific to Cambridge either, but the History Traditions list specifically has list links to professorships and chancellors of Cambridge, not all universities, and not to definitions of professor etc.. Also Formal Hall is specifically described in its article as "Doxbridge" tradition. The ceremonial post of Esquire Bedell, on the other hand, is to be found
at for instance, a number of lesser known and not particularly old UK and Australian universities:
*http://www.csu.edu.au/acad_sec/manuals/j9.rtf Charles Sturt University, Australia
*http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~ecc/ University of Southampton, UK
*http://www.usyd.edu.au/su/DASS/calendar/cal01~o2.htm University of Sydney
*http://www.unimelb.edu.au/ExtRels/Media/UN/archive/1999/426/jimpotter.html University of Melbourne
*http://www.une.edu.au/alumni/download/after05_00.pdf University of New England, Australia
*The history and traditions section should be for Cambridge-specific or at least D/Oxbridge specific items only. Otherwise the logical thing would be too include every single historical university term under that section. 
Bwithh 14:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Esquire Bedell]]

message: To match other UK universities, I have created the above category, with two sub-categories: the existing :Category:Alumni of Cambridge University, and a new :Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge.  I would suggest that the latter be eventually divided by Faculty (or maybe department), rather than by college. Bluap 17:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:People associated with the University of Cambridge]]

message: Can someone create a new page for: Laboratory of Molecular Biology please? It is ridiculous that such a world-class scientific institution does not have its own page! I was there last Tuesday for a brief visit and was particularly impressed. It is now listed in the Cambridge institutions.
See: * http://www.bluesci.org/content/view/436/265/ for a report on Brenner's talk on 1st of May 2006! Does anyone know whether he is a 'Sir' or not as I suspect not? It was a great talk. 
62.25.109.194 MP 62.25.109.194
The LMB was already listed under the institutions list Bwithh 20:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MRC LABORATORY OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY 

message: Stephen Turner throws the baby out with the bathwater since the pdf file is a distinct improvement on the web site material, so why not offer a choice? Again, you should discuss changes first - not revert! The magazine article contains photographs and drawings which are not on the web site, I know as I have a copy of it! See: http://caialumni.admn.cai.cam.ac.uk/alumni/devoffice/OACIssue2.pdf
NitramrekcapMPNitramrekcap
: The PDF article is better, and would be good if we could just link to the relevant pages, but I didn't feel it was appropriate to link to a PDF of the whole magazine. Maybe Caius could update the article on the website using some of the pictures? Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ONCE A CAIAN MAGAZINE 

message: I have re-added Lee Kuan Yew- note however that it was not me who added him in the first place. If anyone wishes to discuss here why he is not notable please do so before reverting. Badgerpatrol 20:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable members

message: I don't understand the colleges system (for I am american); do they each have their own exclusive faculty members, or are they more like, say, the residential colleges of Yale? How closely do the different colleges work together? Is the university sort of just like a treaty between the different independent schools? 152.23.84.168 22:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowadays, the colleges can be thought of as glorified Halls of Residence.  They provide accommodation to students, usually for the entire length of time the student is at university, and have social activities / societies / sports clubs / bars / dining facilities / etc that are centred around the college  (there are also university-wide societies and sports clubs).  Lecture courses are taught by the departments, which are university-wide.  However, example classes and essay marking are organised by the colleges, usually via supervisions with two students and one faculty member or PhD student:  some colleges group together to organise supervisions in 2nd and 3rd years of subjects.  Senior Faculty members (lecturers and above) almost always belong to a college, and help teach that college's students: these faculty members are known as "Fellows" of those colleges.  During a PhD, the research is usually organised by the departmnet, but the PhD student will also be a member of a college (and will typically be offered accomodation by that college).  Colleges also offer funding for junior post-doc positions known as "research fellowships", while the departments will arrange higher-level post-docs themselves (department-arranged post-docs will not normally be a member of a college). Bluap 23:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the main practical differences is the wealth of different colleges, which are separate charitable institutions from each other and the university (these days they are trying to work more in concert). Although the wealthiest colleges do contribute disproportionately to the university and to poorer colleges in order to spread the money around, there are still significant financial advantages to being at a wealthy college. For instance, an undergraduate at Trinity or St. John's is far more likely to secure full funding for a master's degree from his/her college than an undergraduate at Selwyn or St. Catharine's. Bwithh 21:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colleges 

message: Though this article has no mergefrom tag, the article Faculty of philosophy cambridge has a "mergeinto|University of Cambridge" tag, pointing discussion here. 
I oppose the merge because Cambridge has many departments/faculties that deserve discussion, and merging them all would not be appropriate. It is more sensible to leave them as separate articles, even if some are fairly short. Somebody more knowledgeable might even like to check if all appropriate departments, faculties, colleges, etc. already have their own article.   
The Merge tag has been there since 2006-03-27. Any objection to removing it?
At the same time it might be a good idea to capitalize the title (Faculty of Philosophy Cambridge), since it is a proper noun.
--Boson 11:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In its current state, the Faculty of philosophy cambridge page isn't much, but I can see that the page has scope for a lot of improvement.  If it has to be merged, then I would merge into Faculties and Departments of the University of Cambridge Bluap 16:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge from "Faculty of philosophy cambridge" 

message: For those interested, at an alum dinner in NYC in Oct 2006, a Cambridge in America representative remarked that the 800th anniversary campaign was the largest (by 3-5 times) ever charity campaign in Europe for a single cause, and that 500mm+ GBP had already been raised (this includes the 300mm from the pre-launch period... so really 200mm since the year or so since the official launch.  Bwithh 22:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Campaign

message: Is he significant enough for the main list? I find it very difficult to tell from his articles, which come across as rather hagiographical. Mind you, Douglas Adams? should he be there? Bwithh 05:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sri Aurobindo doesn't seem important enough to me. I wouldn't object to dropping DNA either. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sri Aurobindo]]

message: Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 03:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes! The Men from Le Ministère are here to make sure that Britain toes the line! (or however that old tv ad goes) Bwithh 03:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: (I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.)
There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#University ratings. Timrollpickering 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: University ratings