Talk:University of Oxford/Archive 2

message: Does anyone know if Oxford accepts anything less than a first class honours degree for entry to their graduate programmes? If so, does it have to be a good first or will a first "by-the-skin-of-your-teeth" do?!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.206.1.17 (talk • contribs).
:I'd say it would very much depend on what graduate course you were applying for. There are many people studying in Oxford as postgraduates who received a 2:1 degree. There are certainly also some (relatively few) DPhil/PhD students who received 2:2 degrees, especially in areas where well-funded research programs are nevertheless attracting comparatively few applicants for student places. In some subjects, being admitted as a research student is in practice primarily about finding a willing supervisor; department and college admission will follow as a formality in all but exceptional cases. Of course, being admitted and being able to fund your study are two quite separate issues!
:Academic qualifications will not be the only factor in admission to any course of postgraduate study at Oxford - as with job applications some candidates will be successful because their broader life experiences catch the interest of the people responsible for the admissions process. More mature candidates might find that the class of degree they received many years before would be considered quite unimportant! --Casper Gutman 00:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admissions 

message: I would propose that University Council be merged to the section University of Oxford#Governance and administration. This appears to be a simple task, but I don't know enough to avoid contradiction. Specifically, University Council implies that the council was established in 2000, while this article makes it seem like it's been around as early as 1969. Thanks. BFD1 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Council Merge 

message: Unless this is some very obscure reference that I don't understand, I think this is a prank: under the admissions section, the first sentence reads: "Admission to the University of Oxford is based wholly on who you know and the ability of your father to do a funny handshake whilst felating a buxom goat" with a reference at the bottom of the page to Courses and Entrance Requirements. As you would expect, there is nothing related on the referred page. Noticed on 3/18/07 The Crunchy Frog 07:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, you may need to refresh your cache - that was reverted quite some hours back.--Alf melmac 07:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Page Pranks

message: When Americans say that they went to Oxford is it generally accepted (in the US) that they mean this institution, or could one reasonably expect that they are referring to one of the other educational establishments of the same name which exist in the United States?  We in the UK assume they mean the former, but a recent conversation I had with an acquaintance leads me to suspect that this may be incorrect. -- 86.17.211.191 10:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's how these "other establishments" survive - it's a way for those who couldn't go to the Oxford to pretend that they did.  If you ever see anyone wearing a "University of Oxford" tee-shirt, you can guarantee they didn't attend the university. Deb 11:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: To answer your question, yes. 23:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Americans and "Oxford" 

message: I am curious to know whether the spelling used in this article was as a result of the usual procedures, or simply the result of an invisible contention that because this is a "British" establishment, its article must accordingly use British spelling. I care neither way, and I am aware of the policies on this topic. ALTON .ıl 23:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any words in particular that catch your Bruin eye?  The earliest version of the article I can find is this, (gosh, hasn't it improved!) but that is a conversion from an earlier version now lost, so I can't find out who the original author was.  Whilst no words jump out at me in that earliest reachable version as being "British English" over "American English", maybe I'd only spot them if it was written in American English.  Perhaps it's been edited overall by more British English editors than American English editors - or, when in doubt, editors have referred, of course, to the OED!  Bencherlite 00:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, just wondering. I was reading over it and came across "centre", and usually people slit thoats and start world wars over those sorts of things. The last explanation is more probable, thanks. ALTON .ıl 01:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting point, in the context of a recent change of spelling from "organisation" to "organization" and back to "organisation". The OED is unusual amongst British English dictionaries in preferring the form -zation to -sation -- so in theory you might think that an article on the University of Oxford might use the less-common-in-Britain -zation spelling, given that the University own the publishers of the OED! But hey, for my own part I don't have any preference either way, as long the approach is consistent! – Stuart. (Sjb90 | talk) 11:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Can someone add an aerial or satellite photo of the campus? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.184.53 (talk) 03:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no campus. 64.236.80.62 16:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no campus. Like many UK universities (particularly metropolitan ones) the colleges and other departments are dispersed throughout the city. Badgerpatrol 17:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campus 

message: I've made quite an effort to streamline this section. There was much repeated material, often in an incoherent order that was unfriendly to the reader; hopefully now someone new to the university will find the section more useful.
The article is still quite a way from the quality it should be, though. Of the various things that need to be done, sorting out the massive list of 'institutions' (hopefully turning much of it a few paragraphs of prose) would be a high priority.
I think the "Students in Oxford" section should be moved to the article about the town of Oxford; it is not explicitly about the University, and rather adds space to an already long article.
Possibly a new section, maybe after 'Reputation', concerning plans for future development?Oudweg 03:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisation 

message: The endowment figure cited near the top of the page of £3.6bn is supported by the Observer article cited. However, the Observer article doesn't source it, and it is inconsistent with the latest figures from the Oxford accounts (though these are split colleges and Uni). I have put the split figures in the finance section, which is sourced in its entirity to Can Oxford be Improved. However, the primary source for Coll endowments is here, and for Uni endowment here. Any thoughts as to how we resolve this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.66.80 (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finances 

message: The University relaunched its website and branding on Monday 22 October 2007. Presumably in connection with this, User:Oxforduniversitypublicaffairs uploaded the new device and inserted it in the infobox.
User:Asyndeton reverted to Oxford's belted crest with the rationale 'the crest is far more important than saying 'University of Oxford' (since it's on this page that's kind of a given)'. That said, the new device does incorporate the crest.
Does Wikipedia have guidelines about how far we should try to use an organization's official branding? Omassey 21:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew that the university had revised its website design, but I didn't know that they had a new logo; I hadn't actually seen the site for myself. By saying that the crest was 'far more important' I meant that it deserved more prominence than taking up only a quarter of the infobox image, as it does in the new one and, as such, I reverted. I suppose if this is the new official logo, then it should be in the infobox, but I still think the old image, just of the crest, should be somewhere in the page. Apologies. asyndeton 10:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is provision in the infobox template for two images - see Queen Mary, University of London. The fields are confusingly named but I've added the logo field to the box. If someone can find a good image file then the crest can go there. Timrollpickering 11:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay how does that look? Timrollpickering 11:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. Good job. asyndeton 11:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverted back to the blue logo at the top, Soakologist had gone back to the old crest. As has been noted, it seems commonplace among British universities to have the logo commonly used at the top, and then the crest at the bottom of the infobox if at all (see LSE, Imperial, UCL, Warwick, QMUL, Bristol, Durham etc). If anything, it's Cambridge that should be changed. Oudweg 02:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The infobox still displays the (much nicer) old crest. How about using the logo found here? It's a re-vamped version of the crest (of dubious aesthetic value, by the way) which Public Affairs call "the logo", as opposed to the current image, which is called "primary brand device" -- whatever that means. Any thoughts? JREL (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox images 

message: I've put this article on GA hold. There's a lot to address, but I figured I'd give you a chance to fix things. I fixed a few things as I was going through (some of them were spelling things, which may have been me inadvertently changing British to English American spelling, so I apologize in advance for that if I made those mistakes).
Problems:
*A lot of this article is uncited. I put  tags on specific, dubious statements, but it's a systemic problem. "History," "Organisation," "Admission | Procedure," "Oxford in literature and other media," and "Notable alumni and faculty" have few or no citations.
*A few organizational things. "Other students at Oxford" could be merged into "Organisation" (perhaps intact, as a subsection) and retitled, as it's not about other students, it's about other programs. "Affiliations" section down at the bottom -- it's only one sentence, and should be also merged into somewhere else, wherever it fits.
*"Oxford in literature and other media" (I think simply an "In popular culture" could suffice as the section header) is a very rag-tag and sloppy section. Things shouldn't be in list form -- try to translate it into prose. It seems that there's enough material to start a University of Oxford in popular culture article, which would help a lot in terms of siphoning off material from this article. You could posit that new article as the , which would permit you to only cover the highlights here as you see fit (rather than having to cram everything in).
Like I said, it's a lot to deal with, so I'm not sure you can fix it all within the week. If the GA does wind up failing, please feel free to contact me personally for another review once you've addressed these problems -- I've already had a look at the article, and I've also done FA work on university articles, so I'd be happy to take another look if you'd prefer not to wait in a weeks-long queue. Kane5187 15:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed! And thanks for the review. Everyone worked pretty hard on this, so I'm glad the nomination passed in the end! ColdmachineTalk 16:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA on hold 

message: Please place discussion/comments on the GA review here
* I've had a go at restructuring some of the content as you suggest: the organisation section didn't seem appropriate for the independent institutions such as Oxford Brookes and Ruskin College, so I moved these under the existing 'Institutions' heading and renamed it 'Affiliates and other institutions'. I also moved the overseas student and mature students paragraph into 'access', and reworded it slightly. I'll have a go at finding more references in the meantime. If someone else wants to tackle the mammoth task of moving the Oxford in popular culture material off to its own article then feel free...! ColdmachineTalk 17:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: You guys have done some great work on this article! All my concerns have been addressed. One thing, though -- in the Reference section, I see a lot of redlink dates. They should be in YYYY-MM-DD format to default to user's settings. Kane5187 14:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed! And thanks for the review. Everyone worked pretty hard on this, so I'm glad the nomination passed in the end! ColdmachineTalk 16:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Passed 

message: Does Oxford have specific professional schools for graduate studies like most American universities (e.g. School of Medicine, School of Law, etc.)? If not, how are graduate degrees in areas like medicine, law, or business awarded? W.M. O'Quinlan 04:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Law and medicine are undergraduate degrees. Graduate degrees (e.g. Master's, PhD) in these subjects are administered by the respective departments. There is the Said Business School for MBAs and the like. Badgerpatrol 14:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Having said that, of course, there are specific Graduate Entry Courses for Medicine (don't know about Law, but there may be). --79.64.19.54 (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graduate and professional school 

message: I am not sure that the use of D Phil does back to the middle ages. I think it goes back to about 1890. However, I do not know why Oxford selected this title and others, including Cambridge, selected Ph D. Of course the odd use of MA (license to govern) and BA (license to teach) do go back to the middle ages. I think this needs more research. --Bduke 00:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I agree. I reworded the statement so it was less a case of WP:OR but I've removed it now, as an unsourced statement. Can always be added back when there's a reference to go with it, but for now with GA nomination underway it makes sense to rm it. If anyone disagrees, feel free to rv me! ColdmachineTalk 11:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't disagree if we've not seen the statement.  Can you post the statement here in Talk so we all can work on it? Bushcutter (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Degree titles 

message: I am bothered by the throwaway line "It is also regarded as one of the world's leading academic institutions." in the beginning of this article. First, it's in a massively passive voice. Regarded by whom? By me, yes. By you, probably. But that's not good enough. Just as bad, it's a peacock term WP:PEACOCK that serves little purpose. You don't need to say that it's regarded as such, the rest of the article should speak to that. Compare this to articles of other well known institutions- Harvard, Stanford, etc and you can see the difference. That little blurb probably shouldn't even be there, but if it is, it should be written more actively (i.e. the European Council on Education issued a report indicating that it regards Oxford as one of the world's leading academic institutions).Epthorn 17:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is silly.  "Peacock statements" that are universally acknowledged to be true aren't peacock statements.  Oxford is one of the world's leading academic institutions; Shakespeare is generally considered the greatest writer in  the  English language; etc.  Saying that the European Council on Education issued a report indicating that Oxford is one of the world's leading academic institutions creates the false impression that this report is stating something new and interesting, when in fact such a hypothetical report would merely be indicating something that is common knowledge and that everybody already knows and agrees about.  john k 17:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: See the Reputation section, which has referenced statements about Oxford being highly placed in international surveys of universities.  This sentence is in the lead, not the body, and is there to act as an introduction to that section of the article (WP:LEAD). That said, if you can improve it, go ahead!  BencherliteTalk 20:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I actually agree with User:Epthorn here; it can be considered a peacock term. If it's already testified to in the article body then it should perhaps be removed (i.e. its redundant). Personally, I think it should be reworded and supported by a source. That said, it's not worth edit warring over... ColdmachineTalk 22:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: In the University of Cambridge article, which has a similar phrase in the intro, there is a link to the "Reputation" section of the article, where the claims are sourced. Bluap (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sounds like a good compromise; basically as long as there is some sort of source linking to that sentence, I see no reason why it can't be included! ColdmachineTalk 07:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Probably - though of course everyone knows that Oxford is better than Cambridge :) Deb (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The account of the founding of Cambridge University goes something like this (from my draft page on the history of CU): "In 1209, two Oxford scholars were convicted of the death of a townswoman, and hanged by the town authorities, with the apparent consent of the king. In protest at the executions, the University of Oxford (which would normally have held juristiction over prosecuting the scholars) went into voluntary suspension. Many scholars, fearing the hostility of townsmen, migrated to other cities. Some followed the Oxford Chancellor to his home town of Cambridge; others fled to Paris, or to Reading. Five years later, the University of Oxford reformed itself, and many of the dispersed scholars returned. However, enough remained in Cambridge to provide the nucleus of the new university" Bluap (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok that clears it up, thanks! Crazy coyote (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an excellent historical note (if it can be documented, of course).  My first question on reading the Cambidge article was,"What was going on when the founders left Oxford?"  There's no need to hesitate to add it to both articles . . . but the next question, naturally, is "What happened to the townswoman?" Bushcutter (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro line 

message: Does anybody know of an instance whereby somebody with a 1st class degree was rejected by Oxford for post-grad study? Similarly, does anybody know of an instance where by somebody with a 2.1 was accepted?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.224.160.14 (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 2.1 or Oxford Second Class were quite common in the 1960s when I was there. I'm not sure about now as Firsts are now more common than then. --Bduke (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: A lot would depend on the subject.  In subjects where grants are few and far between, someone would be unlikely to get funding for post-graduate study, whatever their initial degree.  Conversely, in subjects where grants are plentiful, there are likely to be students with less good first degrees. Bluap (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Stupid question. How could anyone know? --79.64.19.54 (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Know what?  Deb (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know somebody with a 2.2 who just finished his DPhil. BA results aren't everything. Take A.E. Housman...--195.194.143.91 (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this even being debated here?--195.194.143.91 (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post Grad Admissions 

message: I've reverted to an earlier version of the page; the edits made in the meantime had all been reverted anyway but two still stood. One; the change to crest display. That still remains and was unaffected by my revert. Two; the change to the lead in removing the link to the section on reputation. I have reverted this edit because preliminary consensus was reached on the talk page regarding this and the edit was made in the face of that. Potentially controversial edits should always be discussed on the talk page...particularly in this case since many editors worked hard to get this article up to GA status. ColdmachineTalk 21:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of my revert on 21st April 

message: In response to this edit, by , while I do not "think that HESA is more accurate", I do support the use of the same statistics across the UK.  HESA publishes several data tables, and current convention is to use the table which counts every student individually.  I have started a discussion at WT:UNI, to see if there is consensus for using FTE figures, but for the time being, I have reverted the above edit, to keep this article in step with other articles on British universities.  Editors here may wish to contribute to the discussion. — mholland (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First off HESA is not merely "some 3rd party statistics society", it is the recognised main source of data about higher education in the UK. And it gets its figures from the universities directly (with clear pro forma) - the differences between the HESA tables and the respective university publicity (Oxford is not the first institution where this query has been raised) are primarily down to how things are counted, including extra-mural students and whether part timers are counted per head or as a fraction (and more minorly over when in the year the figures are for). They're certainly not counting staff or academic departments. You may have a point about using a different HESA table but it should be standard across the board for UK universities for consistency and comparison - if we let each university article pick whichever table fits local impressions best then the information will be less useful overall. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

text: It doesn't make sense to me to keep something wrong just because same mistake was made in other places...There is a CORRECT HESA table that we can use, if you are that picky about using HESA data tables. As I have said University itself states numbers much less than this and it quite matches HESA's other table. If you are that scientific and claiming that we can't use different methods for similar data in different places, you may call this a "systematic error" but you normally fix them as soon as you find them. SO I think we must fix these numbers! Thank you...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.181.32.48 (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Student numbers 

message: #s 7 & 8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  83.193.252.4  (talk)  18:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Dubious References 

message: The merger of Green and Templeton to create Green-Templeton is causing a minor edit squabble over the number of colleges in the university.  Unfortunately the university facts and figures page is out of date.  (Note, it is right on PPHs).  If anyone knows of an up to date source that would help greatly. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green-Templeton College reduces Oxford to 38 Colleges 

message: Editing the Felix Frankfurter article I read that he was a "visiting Eastman professor in the faculty of Law [at Oxford]", I also find the term Eastman professor in several other articles, but I am unable to figure out what this position refers to. __meco (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a one year visiting appointment for US academics. See this for a recent example. --Bduke  (Discussion) 01:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastman professor 

message: The third paragraph of this section is written in the present tense but refers to statistics from 2007...is it worth keeping this statistic and saying it's from 2007 or should it just be deleted? JacobJHWard (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reputation 

message: University Seal/Device is dated - new official crest can be found here.   
http://www.ox.ac.uk/staff/branding_toolkit/branding_marks_and_logo/the_logo.html
163.1.230.133 (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, nobody in the university proper (as opposed to Wellington Square) takes those people seriously. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, the IP is correct here. I've updated the article to reflect the fact that this is, indeed, the official primary device of the University. I have sourced it accordingly. A revert, without discussion, would likely constitute vandalism. ColdmachineTalk 23:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  University Seal 

message: There seems to be much unnecessary deletion of  contributions with the result that this article remains substantially underdeveloped. Unless there is factual error, mistaken perspectives can largely be corrected by balancing co-ordinate clauses----Clive sweeting
: Moved this to a new section and responding here. On Wikipedia we use content guidelines to determine whether contributions are valid or not. Primarily these require that additions be verifiable, objective, and refrain from synthesising original research. 'Balancing' out content with multiple views is not the way the community approaches editing: this is an encyclopaedia after all, and not a peer-reviewed academic journal. ColdmachineTalk 13:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you read WP:NOT, and specifically WP:NOT#OR. I've already pointed out the content policies which guide editorial practice, and I have already explained this is an encyclopaedia, not a peer-reviewed academic journal. ColdmachineTalk 16:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Please see The pillars on which Wikipedia is built - the first says:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Original ideas, interpretations, or research cannot be verified, and are thus inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a soapbox; an advertising platform; a vanity press; an experiment in anarchy or democracy; an indiscriminate collection of information; or a web directory. It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the Wikimedia sister projects.--Alf melmac 09:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article contrib deletions 

message: Should this be included in the crrent article as part of the universities current activites.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamn2009 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A comparison between the historic endowments and current rate of donations to universities would be useful: I know that Oxford claims it attracts far fewer donations than Harvard, for example.  However to ensure balance and NPOV it might be best to develop this as as stand-alone article (e.g. on voluntary funding of Universities) that would attract oversight from all H.E. communities.  A comparative article on Universities' management of IP and patent rights might be similarly useful.  - Pointillist (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that this might best form part of a collective article on 'HE funding' or something similar. ColdmachineTalk 08:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would also offer a plausible excuse for some reckless undergraduate to immortalise Prof. Jones pictured wearing stylish Brasenose 500th Anniversary memorabilia ("for when you need your casual wear to be a little more ready for the rough and tumble of daily life" - ideal for AFDs and vivas).  - Pointillist (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundraising Campaign 

message: It's a small point (and I know this has come up before, e.g. in June 2007) but "Organization" is the correct spelling for use in this article.  The Oxford English Dictionary has used this form for a long time: it is in my copy of the Third Edition Shorter OED and on the current Ask Oxford website.  It's part of a wider system called Oxford spelling and apparently there's even an IETF language tag for it (en-GB-oed). - Pointillist (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While you are correct in a pedantic way, this is a British article and I think all British articles should use normal British spelling and that is "organisation". I think you were over-hasty in editing the article immediately after raising the matter here. I will revert you edit in 24 hours unless a consensus develops here that agrees with you. The article has used "organisation" for a long time and when it has been changed it has normally been people who think only US spelling is used on WP and not for the reasons you give. --Bduke  (Discussion) 23:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, try a google search for Oxford english "organization" organisation and you'll see how prevalent the "z" form is.  I'm only making the case for it on this article, not as a precedent for all British-English institutions.  Anyway, there's no need for us to get into an edit war if other contributors would like to get involved.  I imagine most of the edits to this article come from Oxonians, after all. - Pointillist (talk) 06:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, which is why I did not revert to the situation we have all been happy about for years. I am an oxonian too, but I still think we should stick to the general British consensus of spelling on wikipedia and not have Oxford articles being a special case. What do others think? Either way, we are going to have people who do not understand the situation changing the spelling. --Bduke  (Discussion) 06:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Bduke on this: personally I use -ize a lot in my own writing, but this is certainly not standard.  Stick to the principle that "all British articles should use normal British spelling". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Bduke and Jonathan A Jones: British spelling for British articles. ColdmachineTalk 07:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks very much for your support, but please don't give away the secret that—though of course I was right first time—my wrong-headed opposers outranked me because they stuck to chemistry while I made the fatal leap to humanities:-)  When I did those search counts I expected they would show a far greater ratio in favour of "z", but having chosen that measure it wouldn't be very honest if I'd ignored it just because the results didn't support my stance.  If university people are telling their spellcheckers not to bother with Oxford spelling, that's part of the evolution of the language, too.  At least now we have a consensus and can move on to other areas that need improvement. - Pointillist (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization/organisation 

message: These are the ratios (i.e. Norganisation : Norganization) between counts returned by Google searches in the form organization site:xxx.ox.ac.uk on 20 April 2009.  Data for colleges (I sampled those apparently associated with the four of us) includes MCR pages but excludes most JCR and other undergraduate societies' pages.  
Sample of Colleges:
15:9 at bnc.ox.ac.uk
4:2 at ccc.ox.ac.uk
16:5 at merton.ox.ac.uk
17:6 at queens.ox.ac.uk
24:16 at sjc.ox.ac.uk
7:5 at worc.ox.ac.uk
Divisions:
17:1 at humanities.ox.ac.uk
86:19 at medsci.ox.ac.uk
22:1 at mpls.ox.ac.uk
9:2 at socsci.ox.ac.uk
Admin & Policy:
554:88 at admin.ox.ac.uk (and some of the 88 are references to the World Health Organization, so they don't count)
The Z comes from the classical not from the US. The worryingly anal scanning of oxon websites is highly irrelevant as the age of the spelchecker and auto correct have dehumanised spelling.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.162.66 (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much for your support, but please don't give away the secret that—though of course I was right first time—my wrong-headed opposers outranked me because they stuck to chemistry while I made the fatal leap to humanities:-)  When I did those search counts I expected they would show a far greater ratio in favour of "z", but having chosen that measure it wouldn't be very honest if I'd ignored it just because the results didn't support my stance.  If university people are telling their spellcheckers not to bother with Oxford spelling, that's part of the evolution of the language, too.  At least now we have a consensus and can move on to other areas that need improvement. - Pointillist (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ratio of Organisation:Organization

message: I see that Keio University is bragging harder than you guys; does this mean that you two are related? You can read about how Keio bragged in . thanks Nobrag1 (talk) 06:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: it might also mean that you guys are at the same level.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobrag1 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  hello