Talk:University of Oxford

GA Reassessment

University of Oxford

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delist - Article lacks significant citations. @Onegreatjoke, the way people reflect that discussions are not a vote on Wikipedia, is to say something like "I !vote delist". —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

This 2007-listed, level 4 vital article lacks significant numbers of citations. I have tagged over 30 locations, but more may still be there. Without significant improvement, the article should be delisted as failing GA criterion 2. As this is a vital article, with a huge number of reliable sources written about it, I do not think that it will be too much work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Delist Doesn't seem like anyone is going out of their way too fix the article from the ground up so I vote to delist. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notable alumni

@Polygnotus: you have tagged the section with {{summarize}} and {{Excessive examples}}, can you explain your reasoning? Oxford is a former good article and King's College London, a current good article, has a similar sized section. TSventon (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@TSventon: Of course. In order to be considered WP:GOOD an article needs to meet these 6 criteria. A section like Notable alumni is basically useless to 99% of readers. Because its a sea of blue links you can't even click a specific link on mobile. Leaving behind a paragraph or two when splitting is fine; but this is clearly excessive and should be drastically cut down. While the uni may or may not have had a large influence on the individual, the individual often had little to no influence on a uni that has existed for 928 years. Polygnotus (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Having more recently been the promotor for UCL's GA, changing the alumni section to a more summary style (as mentioned on the GA criteria) was one of the things requested by the referee. Length of alumni sections has also been flagged as an issue to be addressed on other older GA university articles, such as Durham. The KCL section should probably be cut down as well. Robminchin (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. I am fine with keeping people who have made a deep lasting impact on the uni. Polygnotus (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing these tags. Given the length of the article, the examples don't seem excessive. Chetsford (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

They can be removed when the conditions to do so have been met (the problem has been fixed). Help:Maintenance template removal. Polygnotus (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we'll remove them once a consensus has emerged to do so. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

See WP:MAINTENANCEDISAGREEMENT point 1 and 2. Polygnotus (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

See WP:DETAG. The tags will be removed once a consensus has emerged to do so. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Then the problem will need to be fixed as well. Polygnotus (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Correct. That's how it works. Consensus will determine if a problem exists in the first place and, if it does, how it should be addressed. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that the alumni section here is probably over-long. As there is a separate article that has been split off, what should be included here is a summary of List of University of Oxford people. For example, everything after "At least 30 other international leaders have been educated at Oxford" could be removed – the article doesn't need to say who "this number includes". There are also incorrect statements ("Of all the post-war prime ministers, only Gordon Brown was educated at a university other than Oxford" – Starmer was educated at Leeds as well as Oxford) and outdated statements ("Over 100 Oxford alumni were elected to the House of Commons in 2010"). Robminchin (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:SPLIT gives instructions: If material is split from an article, consider whether a summary section should be created, and whether a {{Main}} template should be placed at the top of the section to link to the new page. In general, if the split is due to size, then a summary section is required; if the split is due to content (or scope), then a summary section is unlikely to be required. On the talk page of the new and old articles, include the template {{Copied}}. and Add a summary, usually of a couple of paragraphs and one image, of the newly created subtopic (unless complete removal is appropriate). in this case, because it is a CONSPLIT, leaving nothing behind would be appropriate but I am also not opposed to a summary of a couple of paragraphs max. Polygnotus (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a size split, not a content split (these aren't "two or more distinct topics with share the same or similar titles"), so a summary is necessary. The advice at WP:UNIGUIDE to "limit[] the explicit list to very well-known persons (heads of state, historical figures, etc.) and adding a narrative summary of statistics on such things as Nobel Prizes, other prestigious awards, and so on" is also relevant here as to what should be included to summarise the list. This being the Oxford article, the line on inclusion in the summary will, of necessity, be quite high – including all of the heads of state and government, for instance, would already be over 60 people. Robminchin (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Meh, I partially disagree that this is a size split, but that is moot. In those couple of paragraphs we don't have space to namedrop 60+ people so we need to use "x heads of state, x nobel laureates" et cetera which is the advice of UNIGUIDE. Polygnotus (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Mein Khoob Mein Khamkhawa: Hiya! I reverted your recent edits (and accidentally clicked the rollback link; my bad). Can you please explain your motivation for them?

I am referring to these edits:

• 1

• 2

It is unclear to me what you are trying to achieve and why.

We should only remove maintenance templates when the problems have been remedied.

Polygnotus (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Mein Khoob Mein Khamkhawa: Please respond here. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit protection request

I've requested an increased level of page protection due to the high level of IP vandalism/unconstructive edits with nonsense edit summaries. Robminchin (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

But(s)

Chatting: If that's what you want. You seem passionate about hanging these "but"s out to dry. Is that what you want? User:Robminchin I think it is rather contrasting in this instance. For me, as long as it is acceptable it should be allowed. 2601:646:A200:E5B0:2A5E:3804:8C5D:507F (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

It's not a contrast, but an accumulation, so I've boldly change the "but/however" to "additionally". Bazza 7 (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Captivating. I'm Gen Z and there is a new strategy in using 'but'(s) that I'm trying to teach others now. Thank you, and, I agree - some 'but's are better than others but it's quite a stink with some Wikipedia contributors. I don't know if it's a chicken and egg thing but new standards from Gen Z help raise these opportunities. Thank you for the gloss (as we say). If the article can take "additionally" without any argument, I'm fine with that. It does seem like it's only a big 'but'(s) thing. Two options for the price of one is not bad though. I'll watch to see if any other opinions on this women section or other 'but'(s) I update elsewhere. New opportunities daily as I skim the articles. 73.158.120.223 (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Oxford Comma

Contemplating: We're literally not allowing Oxford Commas in the article about Oxford University? Some might call that academic treason.User:Robminchin 2601:646:A200:E5B0:CC31:77A6:4AC4:9C02 (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Styles are not changed without discussion. OUP style includes the Oxford comma (which is what gives it the name), but this page is not in OUP style,as can be seen by looking at all the -ise spellings that become -ize in OUP style. Robminchin (talk) 23:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Certainly there are a lot of Oxford commas in this article. Seems like you erased my edit out of spite. Are you suggesting the article can't handle any new Oxford commas? I've put in two Oxford commas and it keeps being erased. What's a fair offer? User:Robminchin I think it's hilarious that the geniuses writing the Oxford University article outright chose not to use OUP. 2601:646:A200:E5B0:DD05:8446:1228:30D2 (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The are many serial commas, not all are Oxford commas. Serial commas are used where necessary to avoid confusion, like the one you tried to remove earlier that was reverted (by another editor). Oxford commas are serial commas used stylistically where unnecessary for comprehension. Robminchin (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Creative way of acknowledging there are other Oxford commas in the article. So, you were just abusing my edit. There's def this small ring of contributors deciding on their own not to listen to new advice. User:Robminchin 2601:646:A200:E5B0:DD05:8446:1228:30D2 (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I was particularly amused by the edit [1] which introduced the phrase "in 1981 ," (sic). If you want to have strong opinions on one aspect of punctuation then I suggest that you also pay attention to correct spacing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

As pointed out before, Wikipedia policy is too retain existing styles, so if you try and edit in a new style existing editors are likely to revert you. Robminchin (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Calling it out though because you're literally admitting there are other Oxford commas but saying somehow OUP isn't in play. You wouldn't think you'd need to ask if there were others. I shouldn't have to ask if the King's English is available for two edits in some pitched battle for the soul of the Oxford article. 2601:646:A200:E5B0:FE4C:372:8EB:C761 (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

British English uses serial commas where necessary to avoid confusion, which is standard in all varieties of English. There may be other unnecessary commas that have slipped in, but that doesn't mean we should add to them. It's clear from the spelling used that this article doesn't follow OUP style, which it shouldn't as it is not published by OUP. Wikipedia is written in national varieties of English per WP:ENGVAR and the OUP style is a publisher's house style, not a national style. Please learn the difference between British English grammar and American English grammar before editing the grammar of articles written in British English. Robminchin (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Last Paragraph of Reform Section

Challenging the need for this paragraph at all. The other paragraphs in the reform section speak directly to reform issues. This last paragraph seems only to highlight perceived benefits of reform without actually saying so. It may not be nice to remove the entire paragraph, but if it's warranted or not fully contextualized then we should update it with corrective action. 209.214.137.154 (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that looks out of place and is bizarrely vague in when research doctorates were introduced (the first were DSc and DLitt – 1900, which is arguably at the end of the 19th century rather than in the first third of the 20th century) and oddly specific about the mathematics DPhil without mentioning other ones at all (introduced 1917). However, something about the introduction of these degrees probably does belong there. The omission of the 1919 Royal Commission and the resulting 1923 Act is also strange, and would nicely bracket the introduction of the research degrees into the reform period. The last sentence (about distinguished scholars) looks like fluff that has escaped from the notable alumni section. Robminchin (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Political outcome, I suppose. Am I missing something in your response? Are you suggesting we can eliminate this paragraph in its entirety without much blowback? My girlfriend has started helping me coordinate some of these edits - although, she hasn't been very good at even the simplest of tasks. I'll run it by her and see what she says. If she agrees, then I'll delete the paragraph. If she disagrees, well, I don't actually know . . . hehe 209.214.137.154 (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

We could delete it, but it would probably be better to improve it – as is often the case with Wikipedia. I'll have a look later. Robminchin (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Crafting another paragraph could also be helpful. If it works then more power to us and if others have issue with it then we're back where we started. Crafting it to make some sense and fit in with the rest of the subject of reform. Like you said, it is bizarre. 209.214.137.154 (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)