Talk:University College London/Archive 1

message: I came to know from the web that Oxbridge and UCL-ICL-LSE are considered as the member of Golden Triangle (GT). But, later on from a wiki page I got to know KCL is also with in the GT. Some other page said, as LSE is not strongly involved in the research work and GT is a research based grouping, ICL-KCL-UCL are the best choice as the member of GT from UofL. So, I became confused. This article also says KCL is a member of GT. Which one is true ? Please discuss. - Niaz bd 06:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golden Triangle 

message: Does UCL really account for over 40% of the Russell Group's funding? There are 20+ universities in the group, do the other 19+ just share the remaining 60%!?
Salamander4000 09:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russell Group funding 

message: This seems like a pretty random selection, and pointless given that all of them can be found via the UCL website .  I'll delete it, unless anyone objects. Jihg 18:35, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
:Agreed.  Seems arbitrary. --stochata 00:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of subdomains of ucl.ac.uk 

message: The famous alumni section is difficult to check up on as people simply list a person name.  It would be much easier if everyone listed the name they want to add here with reasons for inclusion.  For example, who is Lewis J Vincent?  Do they merit inclusion? --stochata 11:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Alumni 

message: Note that UCL has changed its logo -- see http://www.ucl.ac.uk
The new logo is here -- http://www.ucl.ac.uk/corporate-identity/artwork
I'm not putting it up myself because I don't know the legal status of using it. --stochata 09:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we used the old one without any problems.  I've included a version of the new logo (:Image:UCL-logo-new.png).  Should we keep the old logo in somehow? Jihg 02:39, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
* Maybe we should also add that they royally flushed £600,000.00 down the toilet to come up with that new design.--Sennaista 00:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New logo 

message: "and is also constitutionally forbidden from being tied to a political party. Candidates for positions cannot campaign on party tickets" - when did this happen? When I ran for a sabbatical in the early 1990s we ran on party platforms. Secretlondon 22:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  UCL Union 

message: appears to have no mention, or article. It was I think independent, and wanted to link Reg Butler to having been head of it. Some idea of official title, and position in UCL now would be useful. Justinc 01:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it depends a bit on history etc. The Slade was founded independently and was absorbed into UCL, while the CORU is just a department. Justinc 17:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slade school of art 

message: Fellow Internet Nerds,
I have added an Alumni section which I think given the status of this university is much needed and adds some interest to the page.
I have added only those I know of please continue the process.
Thanks--195.93.21.101 00:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with this page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_College_London_people#Famous_alumni 
PRB 10:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alumni Page 

message: The long section entitled Founding and development really needs splitting up into shorter sub-sections with suitable titles.  This will make future edits easier, and is also more pleasing to the eye.    As this is somewhat "off topic" for me, I trust someone else will find time to make these improvements.  DFH 18:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founding and development 

message: I have removed the addition to the article that states that the Jeremy Bentham auto-icon was sold on ebay with a reserve of 7.1 million and that it did not reach that amount. The Auto icon was never sold on ebay officially (perhaps it was a joke) and the auto-icon cannot be sold on ebay by UCL to cover any budget deficits. This is because of two things one: UCL is not in a deficit (UCL is actually one of the most profitable UK learning institutions of 2006; because they are so frugal) and second: because the auto-icon does not belong to UCL outright, but to a foundation. Jeremy Bentham and the Auto-Icon are part of UCLs regulations - he must be present at all meetings of the heads of university. It is most likely that this ebay sale as a very amusing joke, in which case it should be re-written as such and placed in the trivia section. This claim must however all be supported with fact, a source for example and unless it is so, I will continue to revert when it is re-added to the article. Harry Harris 11:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the ebay sale (blatantly sounds like a student prank in response to UC's recent financial problems) but I believe the story about JB being wheeled out for college meetings is apocryphal. Badgerpatrol 14:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't even want to have a guess at which bits they might use as paperweights... ;-) Badgerpatrol 00:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's obviously a myth- the above interchange was tongue-in-cheek. Badgerpatrol 19:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto Icon 

message: I have now created Third oldest university in England debate to try to explain all the debate about whether it's Durham, KCL, UofL or UCL. This was mainly because attempts to explain it on the individual articles were getting out of sync (e.g. both the Durham and King's articles were asserting the claim as fact in the main article, whilst a footnote on King's mentioned the point of the Charter and was added to by an anonymous user asserting that the London School of Economics proves an institution doesn't need a charter to be a good university!). I think it would work best if the detail and explanation for this is kept on one page. Please come and help enhance the article. Timrollpickering 16:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third oldest university debate article 

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 00:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  University ratings 

message: The article claims "The philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748 - 1832) is considered to be the spiritual father of UCL as he played a major role in the development of the college. Whilst he is often credited with founding the college, Jeremy Bentham played no part in the establishment of the institution."  So he was heavily involved in its development but not its establishment - what does this mean he did exactly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lfh (talk • contribs) 14:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bentham's role 

message: The line "It was possibly the first to accept women on equal terms with men (the University of Bristol also makes this claim - as both were admitting students to University of London degrees at the time, it is quite possible that this was a simultaneous action)" sounds like its a claim that hasn't been verified and it seems really quite odd to give a speculative explaination of the inconsistency in the UCL and Bristol pages.  
UCL claims that it "bec[ame] the first British educational establishment to admit women on equal terms with men" in 1878 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/about-ucl/history
Whereas Bristol claims that it admitted women on "an equal basis" in 1876 and was the first to do so
http://www.bris.ac.uk/university/history/
It could be pointed out that the University of Bristol wasn't founded as such until 1909, so UCL was the first university to admit women on equal terms as men but the former University College Bristol was the first educational establishment to do so (which...would suggest that that UCL's claim is incorrect).  However, its made obvious later in the same Bristol page that classes and academics were gender segregated at the time ("the first woman lecturer, taught ladies during the day") and that there was no halls of residence for women until 1909, so depending on what is thought to count as "equal terms", UCL's claim might be more accurate if its terms were more equal.  Anyways it does again just seem weird to speculate that it was a "simultaneous action" as part of the UoL and this is from their websites, clearly not the case.
:Looking at the relevant bits of Negley Harte's The University of London: An illustrated history (page 126 onwards) women were admitted to degrees in stages by quite a campaign throughout the 1860s and 1870s. In 1869 separate exams were initiated for women and following a supplemental Charter in 1878 women could be admitted to degrees in all faculties. The first non-sexist exam was in 1879 and the first women graduates in 1880. Page 132: In 1878 University College became the country's first co-educational institution... followed by details of how women had been gradually integrated since 1868 (slowly bringing the lectures into the college premises), with from 1871-2 gradual mnoves were made towards mixed classes, first in art and political economy.
:My semi-stab in the dark is that Bristol in 1876 was doing segregated teaching, albeit with identical entry requirements, wheras UCL in 1878 seems to have been an actual co-educational institution. Timrollpickering 20:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  first to admit women? 

message: Is the list of "notable" buildings, actually significant or is it just every university building that exists? I fail to see how student residence buildings are "notable". If no answers I will remove them from the list next week.
:It is not a list of every building, but a comprehensive list of UCLs largest buildings and the main departments and student residences. They are notable in being a major element of the University College Built Environment, which is why they are on this page. Next time please sign your name and new comments go at the end of a talk page. LordHarris 16:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UCL buildings 

message: I have made a new template to link university articles together. 
Because the UCL article was getting too long, I have aslo created a seperate page for the large UCL history section. LordHarris 14:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: I suggest there should be a category which lists the names of faculties/departments UCL has (with URLs directly linking to the UCL faculty website). UCL is an academic institution and it seems that the wikipedia page does not talk much about the academic aspect of the uni at the moment... Many thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.82.219.167 (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faculties? 

message: I don't know if this is just a problem with this page, or with MediaWiki styles in general, but when using Firefox (PC or Mac) or Safari on the Mac, the [edit] links do not appear by the section headings from "History" to "Museums and collections", and then a bunch of them turn up in the middle of the "Campus Networking" section.
Rueful Rabbit 15:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position of [edit] links under Firefox and Safari 

message: I think that the Bentham Club page can be expanded rather than merged.  16 scholar and 4 news archive, and 6 worldcat hits for "Bentham Club".  There is further room for expansion by including "Bentham House", with 2 news archive and 49 google scholar hits distinct from those returned by "Bentham Club". John Vandenberg 01:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Feel free to remove the tag and expand the article. Part Deux 01:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge of [[Bentham Club]] 

message: The current alumni section (within the main, not the UCL article) doesn't look quite right.  It's all very well and good that Coldplay and Ricky Gervais went to UCL but there are far more important people that should be mentioned first I would have thought.  The university is an academic institution and I think alumni who are more famous for things related to what they actually studied at the university should take precedence, as should their impact on history.  Hence Gandhi, Bell, and Crick should be upfront.  Coldplay and Gervais can be mentioned in the paragraph but after the more deserving, please.  The Cambridge article does not begin by mentioning Hugh Laurie and Eric Idle.--Zoso Jade 23:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alumni section 

message: I'm sure UCL used to redirect to this article with a link to a disambig page. I think it's pretty clear from Google/ Yahoo that this is the primary use of the abbreviation as well, in fact some of the other wiki articles referenced don't even mention this contraction. What do other people think about redirecting UCL to here and just having a disambig link for other uses?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.179.31 (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  UCL main page 

message: I am not sure of the validity of this statement.  I think "[UCL] operates as a fully independent university" is closer to the truth.  However, it is still officially a college of the University of London.  The ability to award degrees does not change this; there are Oxbridge colleges that also have this ability but no one would refer to them as fully independent universities.  For UCL to be fully independent it would have to do what Imperial has done and completely sever ties.  This statement is inaccurate and I will change it, unless someone can come up with a valid argument for UCL's independence.--Zoso Jade (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which Oxbridge colleges can award their own degrees? None that I know of. See Recognised Bodies. No Oxbridge colleges on there. They are Listed Bodies, so can offer a course leading to a degree, but they do not have degree-awarding powers. That power is vested in the universities themselves. At least, that is my understanding.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[UCL] is a fully independent university" 

message: I have made a lot of edits recently to improve and expand the article. Firstly I hav elinked most of the articles on UCL, that were within the template, actually to the UCL page. I have also created sections and linkages to other UCL things such as the union, the hosptial, filming etc (I created a new page about filming at UCL). I have added references for everything I felt needed a reference and have answered the citation requests. I have done a general tidy as well, renaming some sections as well as creating some new sub sections such as the library subsection. I have also tidied the museum/collections and the notable buildings and departments subsection. I have also made the campus networking section more concise, as it was extremely long. I have also archived the talk page. I now feel that the article is up to GA criteria and have nominated it to be reviewed.LordHarris 01:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination 

message: The article is very well written, comprehensive, and cited properly. However, I would strongly suggest that the 'sidebar' of images be at least partially moved to the gallery at the bottom of the page-as it looks a bit intrusive. Other than that, this article deserves GA. ErleGrey 23:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will put some images in the gallery. Thank you for the review and the GA status. LordHarris 22:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA pass 

message: The opening paragraph has been amended recently to include "and the first to be founded on a non-religious basis".  What does this mean?  The first in England? The UK? The world?  Obviously it can't mean the first in London - that would be obvious as it was the first college of all in London.
Rueful Rabbit 20:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I *think* it was because it was an alternative to King's College London,which at the time exclusively Christian or Protestant.(and possibly similar at Oxford University and Cambridge University.)  That's what they told us at any rate! Paulbrock 22:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, King's College was founded in 1829, three years after London University (as UCL was known in 1826). The only other universities in England in 1826 were Oxford and Cambridge, and debatably Durham, all of which were religious institutions. Should the phrase read "and the first to be founded in England on a non-religious basis"? Rueful Rabbit 00:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First non-religious college? 

message: What determines what appears in the information box when you click the little marker on UCL in Google Earth?  It appears to be extracted from the Wikipedia page.  How does it decide which picture to show?  The current one is the rather ugly one of the Petrie Musuem, rather than a nice one of the UCL Portico.
Rueful Rabbit 22:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google Earth will include (I think) up to three images along with the article intro for any geotagged article. It will only include images from the Commons, because those are guaranteed to be available under a free licence.  The Petrie Museum photo is the only one here currently on Commons, although I notice that there are other photos here eligible for moving to the Commons. — mholland (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UCL information on Google Earth 

message: Isn't it a bit much having three of the same building? Unusual Cheese 13:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those three photos are presenting three different pictures, Main building in general, at night and in the snow. I think they are quite fine. Niaz bd 14:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three photos of the main building 

message: This rather outlandish claim is made prominently in the second paragraph of the article. The given citation makes no such reference. Does anyone know where this came from? From common sense, it's highly unlikely that UCL alone accounts for 40% of the research funding of a group of 20 universities, which also includes Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial, KCL etc. I'm almost positive it's not true, but thought I'd post here before I removed it, in case anyone can enlighten me. Oudweg 21:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Accounts for more than 40% of the Russell Group's research funding" 

message: Something is corrupted in the references, so that only the first few are appearing. Can someone rectify this - I dont seem to see whats wrong with the format? LordHarris 19:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - just an incomplete reference template. — mholland (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing that. LordHarris 17:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: What does this mean? Did UCL adopt faculties before KCL? --86.1.110.71 (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Other specialist colleges in the UoL (e.g. Heythrop College) are technically considerably older than UC (albeit obviously they have not been a part of the federal system since their inception). UC is manifestly older as an institution than KCL, there's no ambiguity about that.  Badgerpatrol (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: However Birkbeck is three years older than UCL and is definitely multi-faculty - its specialism is in the delivery method not the academic content. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a fair cop, I never knew that; in fact I was never happy with that wording (it was a compromise edit  to satisfy a KCL propagandist ;-) which always seemed a bit clunky. Change as appropriate, Tim. Badgerpatrol (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the oldest multi-faculty constituent college" 

message: Today Lord Woolf was on Radio 4, when he mentioned his time at "University College". He did not say "University College London", "UCL", or "University Colllege", but "University College", lacking the word "London", not abbreviated to mere letters, and with the emphasis on "College" rather than on "University". I suppose "University College" might be taken to mean University College, Oxford (though this is almost ubiquitously called "Univ"). Might one understand that if the former Lord Chief Justice calls it at "University College" the other variations, "University College London", and perhaps to a greater degree "UCL", are more plebeian locutions?--Oxonian2006 (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard "University College" used be a few at UCL, usually longer standing academics or a few who've apparently learnt from somewhere that it's the "correct" form (I take such claims with a pinch of salt as very often it's based on personal interpretations of documents and not on the official style guide). The names of a lot of the London colleges are regularly subject to branding exercises that try to get a consistent form in place and very often provoke backlashes and people going out of their way to use a particular form in protest when previously they wouldn't have bothered. But presumably Woolf is just using a more old fashioned form that was far common in his days there (when the usual rendering for most colleges was "Name of College, London" and many often dropped "London" in casual speech). Timrollpickering (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct casual use of name 

message: The Thomson ISI section is completely lifted from the UCL website, as the reference indicates. Why not go to the original source? Ah... I know why! Because the original source has not been spun in such a way as to put UCL in the best light. This version shows how UCL is the best outside north America, the second best in Europe, and so on. Why not show that it is the nth ranked in the world? What is there at the moment is not untrue, but it is advertising for UCL. We all know that UCL likes to claim that it is better than Oxford and Cambridge, and here's the evidence it needs to prove it. I think this is known on Wikipedia as boosterism and POV. Please can we have a more faithful exposition of the evidence, not one spun by UCL for its own ends?--Oxonian2006 (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that your totally unbiased take on things, Oxonian? Badgerpatrol (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I should say that my view is informed rather than biased. I am in the position of being able to compare the experience of studying at both Oxford and UCL and I can say that, as the colloquial expression has it, there is no comparison. But on the point of the use of sources I can say that it certainly does seem to be an uncritical approach. If you wanted to know how the British media covered the Falklands War would you rely solely on the account of British media coverage given in the memoirs of Margaret Thatcher? (She may not even comment on it, I am just making up an example.) No, of course not. You would go to the British Library at Colindale to read the original newspaper accounts; you would consult audio and audio-visual material held in the archives of the BBC and other broadcasters. Then you would ask questions about each individual source, such as the political views of writers and editors. All universities do this (though it must be said the better universities naturally do it less). The most crass examples are those one sees on advertisements on the underground (at least that is where I see them). The University of X asks you to study there because it is rated the best in the UK. Only when you read the small print do you discover that it is rated best in the UK in the student satisfaction survey, or it was rated as having the best online learning resources, or something else equally marginal to its actual quality. Then to say, "X is the best university in the UK", would be to use that source uncritically. You would say, "According the X's own advertising, such a survey rated it best in the UK for this aspect. Further research shows that The Times rated it overall 90th in the UK, The Guardian 91st, etc. There are also over five hundred American universities whose academics were more frequently cited in peer-reviewed journals". The UCL article is, like so many university articles on Wikipedia, just advertising for UCL. By all means include this information, but put it in context; go back to the source, ad fontes; tell us what the original source said, not what UCL said that it said.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be suggesting that the information in this section as it stands is derived from UCL's own advertising or a press release, but I confess that's not how it reads to me. However, I suggest then that you compose a table comprising the rankings if every UCL science department in the Thompson citation index survey, and include that, rather than the selected list that is now included, and reference it clearly to the original source. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is hard to see how you can fail to read the section as being derived from UCL's own advertising or a press release. The reference given in the article is this page: 'Research powerhouse: UCL top-cited in UK', UCL website, 15 July 2008. That seems conclusive to me. Alas I have tried via Athens to log in to the website that contains the original source and I just get a blank page.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that the direct Comparison to Oxford and Cambridge is somewhat superfluous (this is an article about UCL after all). The highlighting of research in certain areas I don't however see as a problem. Characterising the strengths of a particular institution’s research is a large part of its "Academic Reputation" i.e. UCL has a reputation for conducting excellent medical research. Also Oxonian, I could add that your experience of studying at these schools may not inform your oppinion as much as you think about international research citations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rely Day (talk • contribs) 17:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[University_College_London#Academic_Reputation]] 

message: Though they had ecclesiastical origins, the Scottish universities did not require the religious tests that debarred nonconformists from Oxford and Cambridge, and so attracted many English students – for example Erasmus Darwin, whose grandson Charles Darwin was brought up in Unitarianism but baptised and educated Church of England, and who went to the University of Edinburgh before dropping out and going to Cambridge. It may also be worth noting that London University along with private medical schools attracted many Scots medics when it opened, notably the anatomist Robert Edmund Grant whose views were anathema to the established church. . . dave souza, talk 12:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First secular British uni? 

message: This article reads as if the only important thing about UCL is its position in the league tables, and the organistions it is party to. No doubt, league tables are important but must it be the first thing to appear after the introduction? I fear editorial decisions like these are made by present and former UCL students, in an attempt to make clear the academic standing of our institution lest it come under question by others. Read the articles on other 'peer' institutions, and you will see that they are much more modest and focused on the history and activities of the institution.
n.b. I'm a UCL undergraduate. 212.183.134.209 (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rankings, etc... 

message: I've now re-organised the page, following the guidelines set out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities and generally followed by UCL's peers (particularly in the U.S.), added some more information (mainly in the new Organisation and administation section), and done a bit of a general tidy-up.
In my view there is still a lot of room for improvement on the page, particularly in the History section (which I feel needs expansion and ideally subdivision into centuries) and the Notable buildings sub-section (which I feel needs tidy-up and perhaps slimming down). The Organisation and administration section could also do with a proper Central administration sub-section.
However I feel strongly that the page should be a collaborative effort so I will not make any more substantive changes until others express their views on how to take the page forward. It would be great to work towards Featured Article status in time.Rangoon11 (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page overhaul / ideas on how to move forward 

message: Lists of names in this article should be sourced in accordance with WP:BLP. As there is no way of constantly maintaining linked articles, this applies to names which have a Wikipedia article as well as those that do not. Any name listed with no verifiable citations should be removed. Refer to WP:NLIST for guidance. Fæ (talk) 09:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of names 

message: Heenal Raichura is continuously being inserted and then removed from the list of notable alumni in this article (and not just by me). My own view is that, although I don't question the achievements of Ms Raichura and have no problem with her being included in the List of University College London people article, I do not feel that she (yet) merits inclusion in a list which is supposed to be a brief selection of the most notable UCL alumni over the span of the institution's entire history. 
I would be grateful for other people's thoughts on this issue since it keeps coming up again and again and is, of course, inherently subjective.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there has been no response to the above request for comments in over a month I shall now be deleting Heenal Raichura (again) from the notable alumni list. I am, of course, still very happy to discuss this issue should anyone subsequently wish to debate it. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Any reasons? Rangoon11 (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Heenal Raichura]] 

message: I have just made an edit re the dropping of the comma from "University College, London" to "University College London". This was a by-product of the Royal Charter granted in 1976. The article previously misdated this charter to 1977, citing a (now redundant) UCL webpage which did indeed say 1977. I have left that citation in, but have added a reference to the full text of the charter, also from the UCL site: the charter is clearly dated by regnal year as 17 November, 25 Elizabeth II, which converts to 1976. It seems extraordinary that UCL can have got the date of one of their own key constitutional documents wrong, but there it is. GrindtXX (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of charter 

message: Since the coat of arms is "no longer used in any official capacity", I don't think it should be used here at all. I studied at UCL for four years and never came across this even once so have no association with it. My main reason for wanting it gone is that Facebook uses it on profiles and it just looks odd. 62.173.69.98 (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been looking into this, though without a lot of success. However, Negley Harte and John North, The World of UCL 1828-2004 (3rd edn, 2004), p. 154, illustrate a version of this badge (i.e. the embowed arm holding an olive wreath, on a torse, all within another olive wreath, and with the motto beneath), not on a shield, and describe it as "The Union's crest, with the College motto". UCL Union was established in 1893: the illustration isn't dated, but is a traditional engraving, and I'd imagine almost certainly pre-1914. I've seen versions of the badge on a shield on mid-C20 semi-official publications (dinner menus, sports programmes etc), though I can't give references. Pace 62.173.69.98, a version of it (not on a shield) does currently appear prominently at UCL, painted over the back entrance to the Bloomsbury Theatre (with the letters CCB: I don't know what that means). My current hypothesis is that the badge was originally adopted by the Union, from there was borrowed by sports clubs etc (who were probably the ones who put it on a shield), which led to its being used in various unofficial and semi-official contexts, and perhaps occasionally even officially by the College. I'd guess that state of affairs lasted until roughly 1970, when UCL started to tighten up on corporate branding and first adopted a logo (the predecessor of the current one). As Oxonian2006 says, the crest-on-a-shield breaks all the rules and conventions of heraldry, and can certainly never have been the subject of a formal grant of arms. That hypothesis needs confirmation, but I doubt I'm far out. If so, the "coat of arms" has all the status of an unofficial and now-abandoned logo, and certainly has no place in the infobox. It could arguably appear much further down the page, under Logo, arms and colours; although personally I'd relegate it to the History of University College London article. For the moment, however, I'll see if I can find any more hard evidence. GrindtXX (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now made an edit incorporating what I've found so far. Still not really satisfactory, though. GrindtXX (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of arms 

message: Am I right in thinking that the only way to get the UCL Institute for Global Health to appear automagically in the "academics" box at the bottom is to create a Wikipedia entry for it with the appropriate category (University College London|academics) included? Winelight (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong. If you click on the small 'E' at top left of the box, you'll find you can edit the template, and simply add the IGH in the appropriate place. Of course, if you want to create an article for it (even just a stub), and link to it from the template, so much the better. GrindtXX (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding UCL Institute for Global Health 

message: Panopticon (UCL building) redirects here. It's not clear precisely why, other than a common connection through jeremy Bentham. Is there some specific structure that should be identified as inspired by, or linked to, the main Panopticon page? jxm (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This refers to a building which was planned about 7-8 years ago to occupy the vacant lot on Gordon Street next to the Bloomsbury Theatre. It was (mainly) going to house museum and manuscript/archive storage and exhibition facilities, and the plan was to display Jeremy Bentham's auto-icon in pride of place. And it was going to be called "The Panopticon" (get it? "see-all", for an exhibition space ... all very pretentious). However, although the plans got to quite an advanced stage, funding couldn't be raised, and after the 2008 crash the whole scheme was officially scrapped. So this redirect is pretty meaningless now, and should probably be deleted. GrindtXX (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: OTOH, it's may well be a useful tidbit to include, if we can find a suitable citation for this topic.  jxm (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panopticon 

message: According to the daily mail [], this university was connected with inhumane testing on cats. I believe that this information should be included in the Wikipedia page for this university. I would hope that someone who cares about cats can help bring this to the public's attention through this wikipedia page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dananos (talk • contribs) 10:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal testing 

message: The infobox lists "Admin staff" as 11,000 - this seemed a "little" high so I checked the source and as far as I can tell this number is all staff on payroll (i.e. including academic, technical etc. staff) given on page 2 (PDF page 5) of the source. Probably someone should check this out and if needs be change the infobox to read, simply, "staff"? 128.40.76.3 (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Admin Staff"