Talk:Emmanuel College, Cambridge

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emmanuel College Students' Union. Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Emmanuel College Students' Union]] merged here

message: I've given the article a stub rating, because whilst the article itself is not a stub, the architectural content is absent. -Mcginnly | Natter 12:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try and add to this when I have time, I'll make a start in the coming weeks...The Young Ones (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Architecture assessment

message: Does anyone else feel that listing who currently holds positions on ECSU is excessive - I'm thinking of removing all this detail - does anyone object? The Young Ones (talk) 16:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Excessive detail

message: I now see clearly why the majority of Wikipedia users have become fed up with the egotistical attitude of the Wikipedia editors.  My change to the Emmanuel College article was reasonable and non-controversial and yet someone removed it simply for no other reason than to feed their own ego.  If a college was not admitting women by 1979 then there was obviously a problem involving discrimination.  Your chauvanistic attitude is offensive to at least one-half of Wikipedia readers and by the way you may have just bought yourself a multi-million dollar lawsuit.  Okay, maybe not, but somehow this just doesn't enter into your mind while you're feeding your own small ego by censoring other contributors' valid ideas.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.200.152 (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Both versions contain the same information – that Emmanuel first admitted women in 1979. It should be clear that this is late relatively late. However, the more neutral way should be the one included in the article. That is all. Please stick to the facts and not judgements. — Richie 22:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

text: This unsigned IP makes a valid point. Wikipedia editors should have an obligation to make people feel better about themselves by not reverting incorrect information. More important things in life, such as curing cancer or discovering the truth behind the moon landings, should *always* be prioritised over wasting time improving the credibility of insignificant articles. I hope everyone has learned a valuable lesson here. (192.88.212.32 (talk) 11:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Offensive Removal of Changes

message: I believe the college has always been a Royal Peculiar, subject to the Queen but not to any bishop. This is why it can bless a civil partnership. Perhaps someone could look this up in the history of the college and present it in the article with references.Budhen (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Royal Peculiar

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Emmanuel College Front Court, Cambridge, UK - Diliff.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 25, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-11-25. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Emmanuel College Front Court, Cambridge, UK - Diliff.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: Nowhere in this page mentions the location.  There is a map, but the text assumes the reader know where Cambridge is located.  GenacGenac (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is Cambridge?