Talk:University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology

message: Remember this is an encyclopedia, not a message board for discussing the pros and cons of the merger. If you can find some proper source referring to a debate over the merger after the event (even just a student newspaer) then that might be relevant. Billlion 15:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure it is fine to quote the league table positions as facts. However any analysis of them to determine the effect of merger would constitute original research WP:NOR. Of course this debate is going on privately within the University, but until something verifiable is published it we cannot refer to the debate here. If someone wants to analyse the effect of the merger, get the results published in a newspaper or other verifiable source. Then we can refer to it here. It seems at the moment we have a a couple of quotes in another univerity's student paper, and the University's official statements. Anyone find anything else more substantial?Billlion 19:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this story in the FT 
Manchester aims high to join the educational elite. Billlion 19:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry for posting the wrong link. I read it in the paper edition of the latest Unilife magazine. I couldn't see the pdf on line (I was using kghostview not acroread and the file didn't work) but I assumed it was the same. I will have another look for the exact quote and try to post it here. From memory Faraday, MSS, Morton, Days Inn/Western, Chandros are all on the possible sell-off list (presumably if the price is right). However I wonder announcing plans in encyclopedic enough to mention?Billlion 15:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree on with you on what to put in and leave out. Unless there is anything in print about how people react to the merger, we will just state facts and leave them to make their own conclusions. But just a tuppence worth: a university is more its people and a continuity of tradition than a bunch of buildings, and also are people from both sides who have found the merger beneficial and both sides who have found it detrimental. For some it is too early to say. Will the mathematicians be happy together in the new building they helped design? Will the excellent Music department continue to thrive in its School of This That and the Other in the Faculty of What was Left Over? Will a Faculty of Life Sciences not divided in to Schools work? Will the University have made all those iconic appointments by 2012 and will that mean it goes "from good to great". But we will have to wait until someone writes a retrospective analysis of the merger and its impact before we have something to cite. Billlion 13:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Post merger

message: I have (re-)nominated the :Category:University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology for deletion; please see my reasons, and leave comments, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 6#Category:University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. Thanks. Mike Peel 18:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology]] 

message: I'm not sure of the source for Dalton being VP of the Mechanics Institute in 1840. He was VP of the British Association in 1840 according to . He died in 1844. I know it is repeated on the UoM web site but maybe they got it from here? Billlion (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly suspect that Wikipedia is the source for the UoM website. This is becoming a big problem now. I went through this article last year and added cites for the people I could verify were involved. However, the only source I have to hand is Kargon. I regard the others as very dubious. I would support removing all the unreferenced stuff from here now. It's been a while since I tagged it.Cutler (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well we would need to chck the general sources cited like Calderwell first. That probably where the list of founders comes from. citing sources#General references versus inline citations says general refernces are ok as long as it is not especially contentious. Billlion (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done some digging. In fact I added this list see edit . And the Way back machine confirms that the UMIST web site had it first including the Dalton VP claim  so that was not copied from us. I will reinstate that claim as we certinly didnot start the romour and it is WP:V, citing the archived page as the source.Billlion (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It is actually in Cardwell's book, he was VP 1839-41 despite his health problems. see p 80. Billlion (talk) 09:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dalton vice president 

message: I have just found  
James Jackson Walsh, Higher technological education in Britain: The case of the Manchester Municipal College of Technology
Journal	Minerva
Publisher	Springer Netherlands
ISSN	0026-4695 (Print) 1573-1871 (Online)
Issue	Volume 34, Number 3 / September, 1996
Category	Articles
DOI	10.1007/BF00120326
Pages	219-257
It gives the chronology of the names    Manchester Mechanics Institution 1824--83, Manchester Technical School and Mechanics
Institution 1883-92, Manchester MunicipalTechnicalSchool 1892-1902, Manchester Munici-
pal School of Technology 1902-18, Manchester Municipal College of Technology 1918-55,
Manchester College of Science and Technology1955--66, University of Manchester Institute of
Science and Technology 1966-to date.Billlion (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See also page 231 on the concordat with Owen's.Billlion (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Another source

message: "The UMIST motto was Scientia et Labore (Knowledge and Work)." I think this is a mistranslation. It should read "By Knowledge and Work" or "Through Knowledge and Work". "Labore" clearly is an ablative (while "Scientia" is ambiguous, hence probably the mistranslation).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.173.177 (talk) 08:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: UMIST Motto

message: In the recent, official, estates strategy for 2010-2020 for the University of Manchester http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=8186 it is stated that essentially all of the former UMIST campus is to be sold off (referred to as the "area north of the Mancunian Way"). Only the MIB, which was built in 2006, is exempted, whilst the former UMIST Main Building's fate is left (deliberately?) vague. Urselius (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes defending the demise of UMIST as a genuine merger rather than a take-over followed by asset-stripping rather difficult. I suspect that disposing of the old Main Building will be problemmatic, they may go down the well worn road of dealing with listed buildings by allowing them to fall into such disrepair that any use then becomes attractive to the authorities - plus Manchester Council has an appalling record in the preservation of historic buildings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urselius (talk • contribs) 14:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes I've seen the discussion but haven't joined in as yet.Urselius (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buildings' sell off 

message: There seems to have been something of a 'U' turn on the attitude of the university to the former UMIST campus.  Of course there have been no official notices given out concerning this.  At present the Maths Tower and former Optometry buildings are empty and the Mill will be emptied when the new Chem Eng building is completed (next to the Materials Science building).  However, the George Begg has had an extensive face-lift and Paper Sciences is being repainted, and virtually all the paving and road surface throughout the former UMIST campus is being replaced.  This conspicuous investment would appear to show that the university has realised that its plans to relocate all the engineering departments to new buildings on the site of the Grosvenor Hall complex are too financially ambitious for the short to medium term future.Urselius (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 'U' Turn?

message: : the UMIST buildings are shown on this plan.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, the Main Building (AKA Sackville Building) is not outlined like the rest, presumably a mistake. Urselius (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The date of the map is 2011 but it might not be completely up-to-date then. There is a difference in colour between the Sackville Street Building and the other ones; however it all looks very fuzzy when seen here. It is not the kind of map where the listed building status would make a difference.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

text: @There is a similar difference in geograph map. The reason is not obvious.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map