Talk:University of Manchester

message: I propose to merge Victoria University of Manchester into University of Manchester. I think that the content in the Victoria University of Manchester article can easily be explained in the context of University of Manchester, and the University of Manchester article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Victoria University of Manchester will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Additionally, most of the University of Manchester's well-known alumni attended the university when it was known as VUM. Northern Hills (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly oppose - VUM is a different entity from the present university, as different as VUM was from its predecessor, the Victoria University. In 2004 both VUM and UMIST were formally dissolved and the present university was created with its own Royal Charter. To be logically consistent, for VUM to be merged into this article the UMIST article would also have to be merged and the end result would be illogical and confusing for the reader. Urselius (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

text: Strongly oppose - UoM was formed by the merger of UMIST and VUM as above. List of University of Manchester people is already a merged list for UMIST, VUM and UoM, and that was your main point.Billlion (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

text: Oppose While the current University of Manchester is the successor institution to VUM it is, as others have said, a different entity and is also the successor to UMIST. There seems little to recommend merging the articles and much against it. Robminchin (talk) 05:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I propose to merge University of Manchester protests (2020–2021) into University of Manchester. Content in article could very easily be condensed into a paragraph of a few sentences, another case of WP:RECENTISM. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 18:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose, the merger is not needed. The protests are of sufficient interest in themselves to merit a small article. The protests should be given a mention and be linked on the university's main page, however. Urselius (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose, In agreement with . - Hatchens (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Oppose, same as the two comments above. --Bangalamania (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: A number of rankings have recently been removed from the ranking table, leaving only a select few. This is to suggest that rankings from CWTS for instance, are somehow not worthy of being displayed. I believe this is entirely subjective, and to omit a ranking from a table due to personal opinion contradicts the purpose of an encyclopeadia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.226.1 (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The removal of CWTS from the UK university rankings infobox was discussed on the talk page for that infobox. It was not based on personal opinion but on which global rankings the UK government uses to inform its immigration decisions. As I said in an earlier discussion there on whether CWTS should be kept, "If some authoritative body were to use the principles outlined for research assessment to produce something like a recommended list of rankings to use, that would be something we can use, but if we try to decide which rankings to include based on our own application of the principles that would get dangerously close to being WP:OR". In other words: I entirely agree with, and have argued successfully for, the position that omitting a ranking due to personal opinion would be wrong. It's simply that this is not what has happened here, as is evident from viewing the discussions at Template talk:Infobox UK university rankings. Robminchin (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rankings