Talk:Oxbridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feedback/improvements[edit]

I've done a series of edits to extend and clean up the article, aiming to include all the essential points that others would otherwise add later, but in the smallest practicable stand-alone form: more crisp and focused than Oxbridge rivalry, for example. Any feedback/improvements would be welcome. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I favour a terse style too. I have provided some links to sources above which may help. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks—I was going to ask you to take a look. Good call on Varsity match, btw. It balances the sentence well. - Pointillist (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge Oxbridge reject[edit]

Yworo (talk · contribs) has PRODed Oxbridge reject and suggested it be merged into this article. I've checked it out and brought across Eric Thomas's "Oxbridge prism" quote. IMO the article doesn't offer anything else that would be useful here. Comments? - Pointillist (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i'd be against a merge. The article has just been expanded  Francium12  14:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't change my view: the Laura Spence Affair is well covered elsewhere. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Pointillist and Jonathan A Jones. The term does not seem to be sufficiently significant to justify a separate article. The expansion referred to by Francium12 adds information about particular examples of use of teh concept, but does not add anything about the concept per se. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No-one has commented on the merge suggestion for six weeks, so I've removed it. - Pointillist (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portmanteau[edit]

I have justified my revision, you have not provided justification for yours.
I can only assume it is another example of the desire of some on wikipedia to popularise the term, this insistance on using "portmanteau" in every article possible weather it adds to or subtracts from it's value, is little more than vandalism on behalf of those adding it. with this in mind i will revert your edit and will expect you to justify any further changes before you make them. 218.215.128.17 (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have done nothing to justify your decision. Explaining the portmanteau is important in helping people understand the title, same goes for all of the articles that you have imposed your point of view upon. Stop removing this information from pages. magnius (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i provided an explination within my edit summary, in this article and the others i have edited "portmanteau" adds nothing to the article, It is already explained that it is a composite of the two words and is not necesary to state again so either blend or portmanteau need to be removed for the sake of redability, because it is portmanteau that needs linking to ensure all users understand the meening it is the logical choice to be removed.

you have provided no reason for the need for a redundant description of the word but insist on reverting my edits while claming i am simply removing information.218.215.128.17 (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Country[edit]

There didn't seem to be any particular reason for the reference to the constituent nation of England rather than the country of the United Kingdom, whether you read it as the location of the colleges or the place where the term Oxbridge is used, so I've edited to change that. England would be fine if this were a British Encyclopedia but as an international one 'United Kingdom' is the way to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdfbrown (talk • contribs) 22:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oxbridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Oxbridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oxbridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oxbridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doxbridge[edit]

The section on "Doxbridge" has been growing out of control, for what is frankly a marginal and rarely used term. The Telegraph article[1] that was used to support it mentions it only in passing, and the Spectator article[2] doesn't mention it at all. That leaves some jokey discussions in the student press at Cambridge and Durham, which establish that that the name is occasionally used but nothing more than that. The section I removed on the origin of the name was entirely speculation, also known as original research. While this speculation is plausible enough, and might even be true, there were no reliable sources supporting any of it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "How middle-class are you? Take this quiz". The Daily Telegraph. 19 Feb 2012. Retrieved 2017-03-10.
  2. ^ "For a real Oxbridge education, you now have to go to Durham". The Spectator. 2017-03-25. Retrieved 2018-09-19.

Proposal to change part of the introduction[edit]

My proposition is that the last part of the introduction, namely this one: "and more broadly to describe characteristics reminiscent of them, often with implications of superior social or intellectual status or elitism.", seems to be of little use towards understanding the terminology and more of a rant regarding the author's opinion on the subject.

As such I don't think it adds any value towards the subject and the article and it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galileo503 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I do find that last sentence a bit odd it is basically a paraphrase of the OED "Oxbridge, n. and adj. A. n. Originally: a fictional university, esp. regarded as a composite of Oxford and Cambridge. Subsequently also (now esp.): the universities of Oxford and Cambridge regarded together, esp. in contrast to other British universities. B. a. Of, relating to, characteristic of, or reminiscent of Oxbridge (frequently with implication of superior social or intellectual status)." Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oxbridge&oldid=1207842551"