Talk:Post-1992 university

message: I have (twice) reverted to the "University of Keele". This article is about the universities as then created and whilst the university may refer to itself as "Keele University" its charter and the dfes list uses the former! Djegan 16:53, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Their is too much changing back and forth of names in this article, i.e. the official name of the university when founded is replaced by the current "corporate" name that is promoted by the university - and which is not official. Keele and Lancaster are two excellent examples, on creation these universities were in the form "University of XXX" - and that is what this article is about, the universities as established (as some have since amalgamated with other institutions), it is no about the current trendy name as promoted by marketing departments or as used by the general public. Djegan 11:31, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, sorry about that. I was under the impression that Lancaster University was the official title. I still think it should be kept when the university is referred to in contemporary contexts, though. Lupin 12:44, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Not a bother, I am not trying to be fussy, by all means keep the university title article under its common name - universities that are too often run by marketing departments that like trendy names. Djegan 14:01, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree but can we make the link itself to the current page. With the amount of rebranding that goes on I expect a lot of pages to get relocated quite a bit in the next few years (look at how many titles a place like Imperial has had recently!). Timrollpickering 16:12, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As this article is to a large extent historical might it be better to use a term such as "as created" and use simply the official founding name, although it goes without saying that people have a way of introducing errors and this is a part of wikipedia (just count the number of times that the word "university" is incorrectly capitalised - its a disease of modern society!), redirects are here to stay and are often essential to prevent mass duplication. Djegan 18:00, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Names

message: We also have the article Glass Plate universities which feeds from this, does anyone want to be cheeky and remove the duplicated materical on this article and place them all on Glass Plate universities article, and do similar for 1992 universities, else we will get a lot of duplication with many inconsistancies. Djegan 17:10, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplication

message: I think the information on this page could be better expressed using categories, but I thought I'd comment before making such a drastic change to see what others thought. I'd suggest creating a :Category:Post-1992 Universities and adding each University listed here to that category. It could then be wiki-linked from here, or itself be put into a :Category:New Universities, alongside a :Category:Plate glass Universities or similar.
Thoughts? 
-- Jon Dowland 21:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A list is still handy for at a glance checks. But categories would be useful. We also desperately need to get an unambiguous list for Post-1992 universities - currently that just redirects here. Timrollpickering 10:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  categories 

message: If there's just one possible bone of contention that I have truly and dutifully racked my mind over on Wikipedia as of late, it is how the University of the Arts, London is not once in any context mentioned as technically a 'post-1992 university' (given its only acquiring University status in 2004). 
Presumably the general concensus amongst Wikipedians is that the institution's former history as the degree-awarding 'London Institute', since 1987, effectively overwrites any question of in which category it ought to reside? --MRacer 21:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Post 1992" is a description for a sector of universities rather than a chronological line in the sand. Technically the current University of Manchester was formed post 1992 (the two universities merged and the combined institute was chartered in 2004) but no-one would consider it a part of the post 1992 sector. I'm honestly not sure which sector UotA,L falls into. Timrollpickering 15:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the UoM is really applicable here if it was formed by at least 1 pre 1992 university as I would assume it's obvious the term only applies to institutions which either didn't exist or weren't universities pre 1992. It IMHO doesn't affect whether the term is a line in the sand or not. I don't live in the UK and have never heard of the term before so I can't otherwise add anything but just want to point this out 203.109.240.93 01:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The anomaly of Arts London?

message: I think this actually may have been a polytechnic at some point (Paisley Polytechnic) -can anybody verify this so we can change it?
Zagubov (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  West of Scotland/Paisley University 

message: Surely this needs to be added, granted University status in 2008, it was previously a member of the University of Wales but only form 2003. 84.43.122.129 (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glyndŵr University