Talk:University of Oxford/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Tutorials on postgraduate courses

I know that tutorials are used on the BCL and MJur courses, but I'm not aware of any other postgraduate taught courses that teach that way. Research degrees certainly don't use them. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jonathan A Jones,

As discussed on your talk page, tutorials are stated to be a part of masters taught programs such as the ones cited in the sentence. Research degrees with taught components do use them. The University of Oxford knows very well what a tutorial is, and in what way they employ that word on their documents. The citations( which show that tutorials are used in post grad degrees) are from the official Oxford website and academic departments. By stating that tutorials are not a part of post graduate education, and by continuing to remove such factual information, you are stating then that the University of Oxford's website is being misleading or incorrect? Lastnightawake (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm a Professor of Physics at Oxford, supervising graduate students, and a Tutorial Fellow in Physics at one of the Colleges. I was formerly Head of Teaching for Physics, a member of Divisional Academic Committee and a member of one of the sub-committees of the University's Education Committee. I was also a member of the Standing Committee of Conference of Colleges. So I know precisely how Oxford teaches. And with the exception of a very small number of taught graduate courses which are taught as in effect second BAs, such as the BCl, they do not use tutorials in the style of the tutorial system. Some departments may well have decided to call their seminars and classes "tutorials" but that doesn't make them tutorials. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jonathan A Jones,

Your response is not acceptable. It sounds very bias ( and authorial) to me. It also seems like you are too close to the subject to be editing this page. The cited material, from the University of Oxford's website, states otherwise. The citations state that they are employing TUTORIALS. You still have not provided cited material, just your own personal experiences. You seem to believe that the University of Oxford's website is incorrect (not factual) and all the departments are incorrect (which is a stretch). This doesn't seem valid, based on the cited material. I am reverting the material. Lastnightawake (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the problem is with the word "most" and I am pretty sure that is not correct. Could you please remove that word? Deb (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The other problem is that your edit is based on WP:PRIMARY sources which are essentially advertising materials, i.e. about the worst sort of sources imaginable. By contrast there are multiple books written about the Oxford tutorial system. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to look at primary sources, then try the St Hughs Student Handbook at [1] where you will learn that "Undergraduates have tutorial teaching (which may be held singly, in pairs, or in small groups) and this is usually arranged by your Personal Tutor" while "Each graduate reading for a higher degree or diploma is allocated a supervisor by the relevant Faculty Board of the University when he or she is admitted", with no mention of tutorial teaching. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

At New College [2] we learn that "All those reading for undergraduate degrees are required to attend tutorials" but no corresponding section for graduate students. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

There's no great mystery here: at Oxford undergraduate teaching is primarily a College responsibility, with a core delivery through tutorials, while postgraduate teaching is a departmental responsibility, and is primarily delivered through seminars and classes. It's frankly astonishing that anyone is questioning this. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This feels to me like one of those issues where people on the inside "know" something is clearly true, but like many notorious but uninteresting facts, it is hard to find a good WP:RS source which supports it. It feels to me that the easiest way to resolve it is just to remove the reference to either undergraduate or postgraduate teaching and simply refer to the Oxford tutorial system (which, not by coincidence, is what is done on the University of Cambridge page). This just feels like a debate that isn't worth having.

Also, just for the record - the BCL and MJur are "in effect second BAs"? Ouch. That hurt. Most brutal year of my life.

--Legis (talk - contribs) 21:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Could we possibly say "Most undergraduate teaching and some postgraduate teaching at Oxford .." to end this dispute? There is clearly a big difference between undergraduates and postgraduates. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Just to note that I have fully protected this article for three days to allow this current discussion to run its course. Alex Shih (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The situation is much as Legis suggests (though apologies if I appeared to be downgrading the BCl: I am well aware that this is one of the most intellectually demanding courses Oxford provides). Undergraduate teaching at Oxford is very unusual, and consequently is well described in secondary sources. Postgraduate teaching, by contrast, is (with a small number of exceptions such as the BCl) entirely conventional in style, and so is almost never discussed in secondary sources. For this reason the original version of this article, essentially the current text, says quite a bit about undergraduate teaching but almost nothing about postgraduate teaching, and its hard to see how that situation could really change. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

To be clear on undergraduate tutorials it is not just the small group size that makes them unusual, though this really is small, typically 2 but sometimes 1 or 3, with groups of 4 or more referred to as classes. The other key point is that they are organised by the colleges, not the university or the departments, and largely delivered by core college teaching staff (tutorial fellows and stipendiary lecturers) rather than by "casual tutors" such as graduate students. This has two consequences: first many students will see the same tutor regularly for at least the first two years, and secondly these tutors are teaching a very wide range of courses, and so teaching as "generalists" rather than as "specialists" (I have taught the whole of our first year course and about 40% of our second year course). By contrast graduate teaching is organised centrally by the departments, usually with specialists teaching a small range of topics (I teach two specific seminar-classes for my department's graduate course). The BCl may be unusual here: I don't know whether their tutorials (which are genuinely similar in form to undergraduate tutorials) are organised by colleges or departments. Presumably Legis knows the answer to that one. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I have done a little more digging in relation to this: Oxford has a total of 369 postgraduate courses - 230 by research, 136 taught, and 3 MBA (which are taught, but don't employ tutorials). Source: https://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/oxford/postgraduate Unfortunately, I don't have any reliable source which indicates how many of the 136 taught courses do employ tutorials. We could probably work that out course by course, but I certainly don't intend to do so.

However, despite the greater number of taught degrees, in terms of actual student numbers, it is actually pretty balanced for graduate students: 53% doing research, 47% doing taught postgraduate courses. Source: https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/student-numbers?wssl=1 Whilst we don't know how many of those taught students receive tutorials, we do know the rough breakdown of their fields of study: over half (54%, or 3,023 students) are studying social sciences. A further 15.7% (873 students) are studying humanities. In terms of taught courses only, the percentages doing medicine, or maths, physical and life sciences (where I would happy to work on the assumption that Prof Jonathan A Jones is correct and that tutorials are non-existent) is actually very small: only 852 students (or 15.4%) of the total.

So I don't know for certain how many of those 47% taught graduate students receive tutorials, but it does feel to me that there is likely to be a reasonably substantial minority of graduate students who are studying taught degrees who either do or may receive tutorials. However they are very clearly a minority (my best guess: less than 20%, but that's just a guess), and that contrasts with the undergraduate system where tutorials are ubiquitous.

I think my suggestion would either be (a) remove references to undergraduate / graduate entirely, like the Cambridge article, or (b) do as User:Bduke suggests, and include the qualifier "some" in relation to graduate teaching (not sure we also need the qualifier of "most" for undergraduate, but no strong views).

--Legis (talk - contribs) 12:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I would be happy with a statement that "some" taught postgraduate courses use tutorials, as it's clear from the BCl/MJur handbook [3] that at least some courses forming part of the BCl/MJur use something close in style to undergraduate tutorials, a fact which I have accepted from the beginning of this discussion. I would not be happy with a suggestion that any research courses do without clear detailed sourcing, ideally secondary. I would also strongly oppose any suggestion that postgraduate tutorials are organised or delivered by colleges, as the handbook makes clear that even in the BCl/MJur all tutorials are centrally organised and delivered by specialist tutors. The handbook describes a clearly department centered teaching pattern: see for example "At graduate level, it is the Faculty which plays the principal role in organising student’s teaching and supervision, and monitoring their academic progress. ... Colleges provide support of a more pastoral nature, through the College Advisor, as well as accommodation and meals, sports, social, and welfare facilities." This is exactly what I would expect from any postgraduate course at Oxford. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not happy with the assumption Jonathan A Jones is correct. He has not proof except his word and a citation form a college to a department, which is a differing factor in undergraduates vs post. While I have cited syllabi from specific courses. I am happy with including some instead of most, which is the consensus here and has not been added. In addition, when I included more specifics of the postgrad courses ( masters vs phds(dphils) ), Jonathan A Jones has deleted them. Whether Jonathan A Jones likes it or not, postgraduates are a part of Oxford and should be included correctly in the university's wiki page. I will reedit to fit this consensus, since the edit has not been added. Legis Alex Shih Deb Lastnightawake (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

My edit has been removed once more. I only included postgraduate in the sentence, although other additions to my edit was kept. There is a consensus here to include some postgraduate courses or to delete many. I have done as such. I will revert again, as once agin these are facts. Jonathan A Jones keeps deleting this edit, although the talk here clearly states to include postgraduate. What is the rule on dominion here on wikipedia? It seems a "professor" wants to control the narrative. Thanks.Lastnightawake (talk) 02:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Given that your account has made no edits to University of Oxford since 12 July [4] the comment above is wholly without foundation and quite frrankly bizarre. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Rankings in lead

OxbridgeGate and I have reverted each other over this content in the lead. I do agree with some of the changes but not all of them. My ideal lead would feature the current position in the rankings of THE, QS and ARWU, and a mention that Oxford is consistently rated very highly on many tables (the article is about the university's history not just its present). OxbridgeGate also wishes to include the US News ranking, which is neither mentioned in the article's ranking section nor internationally respected to the degree that the former three are.

There's also an "as of" qualifier that OxbridgeGate would like to include, but I think it is unnecessary. The article is updated regularly and well-watched, so it is constantly kept up to date. The "as of" qualifier would also apply to the previous sentence and the rankings, though I think rewriting the paragraph to include three "as of [current date]" qualifiers would be unnecessarily clunky. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree on no need for the "as of" qualifier, that becomes unnecessarily messy when we have ARWU 2017, QS 2019 and THE 2018, and they all update at different times of the year. Your suggestion for presenting the rankings is fine, US news can probably go in the rankings section as its North American centric. There's no need for all the references, the statements aren't controversial and the rankings section already contains the references (see MOS:CITELEAD).Aloneinthewild (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

There is not any serious disagreement. I didn't intend to modify the ranking in the lead, but then I realised the original statement "by three other university ranking tables" (without even mentioning what those ranking tables were) was obviously flawed. So I thought the other three tables actually meant "ARWU, QS and US News". As for the words "as of", it is actually policy WP:NUMBERS to clarify the time frame. There is even a template Template:Clarify_timeframe that helps us to achieve that. Cheers, OxbridgeGate (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I've made this edit moving the U.S. News ranking.

I don't interpret that guideline as requiring "as of" disclaimers and think it is either implausible to include eight "as of" disclaimers in the third paragraph of the lead (one for each time-sensitive statement), or inaccurate and redundant to use one general "as of [current year]" to cover everything.

I was about to support an "as of 2018" / "in the 2018 league tables" for the rankings, but as the current versions call themselves 2018, 2017 and 2019 (respectively), I think it's best to avoid this. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 23:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Map readability

The map in the article simply isn't readable. It's tricky to know what to do, but I think removing the labels is the easiest option. Then we'd be left with coats of arms for colleges and PPHs, which users can hover over to see the name, and red dots to indicate departments, which again can be identified by hovering over the text. The current map has far too much overlapping text, poor foreground/background colour contrasts and text overlapping with other links for every link and piece of text to be accessible (e.g. I can't hover over Mansfield because of text on top of it). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 15:03, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Wealthiest college

@Brenig102, Jonathan A Jones, and Bduke: a sentence stating "The wealthiest of all colleges is St John's College, with a wealth of some £632 million in 2018." has been added to the Finance section of the article four times on 17 April 2019 and reverted three times, so I think it would be helpful to try to reach a consensus on the talk page. My opinion is that this detail is more appropriate to the Finance section of the Colleges of the University of Oxford article than to the University of Oxford article. I would also suggest that Endowment funds (£552m) is a better measure of wealth than Total net assets (£632m), as college accounts do not reflect all the assets held by the colleges.TSventon (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure it really belongs even there, but it would be less bad there than on the main University page. Endowment funds is indeed a clearer measure than wealth, as wealth reflects accounting conventions which would surpise the naive reader (for example historic buildings usually being valued at near zero). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it would be better to move this material to Colleges of the University of Oxford, and I agree about using Endowment funds. My only concern earlier was that it needed independent sources, but these have been provided. --Bduke (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I have removed the sentence from the university article and added a couple of (hopefully) NPOV sentences to the colleges article.TSventon (talk) 15:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Wellington Square photograph

With some bikes in the snow, some railings and a Wellington Square sign, the current photograph has some artistic quality and might be a useful addition to a study of the area, so I'm not criticising the efforts of Eoin Brennan who took the photo and added it to the article.

It's not a particularly good image to be the sole representation of Wellington Square in this section of the article, though. I'm geographically unable to replace it, but I'm raising the issue here for comments and in the hope that somebody will be able to provide a more appropriate one, perhaps one that includes a view of one of the admin buildings. The result might be less aesthetically pleasing but I'm sure it would be a better choice in the context of the article. Twistlethrop (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of article topic on the Doxbridge page

There is a discussion on the Doxbridge article regarding whether the topic of that article should be the word Doxbridge and its usage or an informal group of universities represented by the term. I am placing this notice on the talk pages of the relevant university articles to solicit the input of the editors of those articles on this matter. Robminchin (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

'Oxonian' redirect

Currently if you search for 'Oxonian', you automatically end up in this article's alumni section, which I think is wrong. Granted, that is one possible meaning of the word, but it can also be used to describe inhabitants of Oxford (see the article on Oxford, where there is a wikilink in the infobox which confusingly also brings the visitor to this article), as well as minerals containing oxygen, apparently. So unless anyone has any objections, I'm going to replace that redirect with a disambiguation page instead. Views? DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, the link is Oxonian. I suggest you create the disambiguation page and then update here. "Pertaining to the University of Oxford" seems to be the primary topic, so perhaps it should link to "University of Oxford" rather than a subsection. "Minerals containing oxygen" could link to Wiktionary. You could also look at Oxonia. TSventon (talk) 08:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I just noticed there is also something on this subject on the Talk:Oxonian page from years ago; don't know if that changes things? DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

On second thoughts I think a disambiguation page would be unhelpful as ten articles link to "Oxonian" and articles generally shouldn't link to disambiguation pages. WP:DISAMBIG discourages disambiguation pages with a primary topic and only one other topic: the sense of "Minerals containing oxygen" is so obscure that readers are unlikely to expect to find articles on that subject rather than Oxford. The reason for the {[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oxonian|deletion discussion]], which only lasted seven hours, was the article was like a dictionary definition (WP:DICDEF). You could try to rewrite the article so it is more than a dictionary definition. Returning to your question, I don't think the discussion of categories on the talk page is relevant. TSventon (talk) 10:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

If the page is turned into a DAB, then those incoming links would just need to be amended to be [[University of Oxford|Oxonian]] with a relevant section if desired. Given there are only 10, it would be quite quick to do, particularly with a tool like AWB. However, given the only link that doesn't relate to the Uni is the one mentioned above from Oxford, then it is probably best to just delink that (a straw poll of Demonyms on other cities is that they seem not to have links). My feeling is that the University usage of Oxonian is PT over the city usage (and the mineral usage is insignificant). We could add a hatnote explaining this redirect, but given the small number of links it would just clutter the page. Spike 'em (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree with that - but it should probably just go the plain title rather than a section. Note also that the redirect is the result of an Afd less than two years ago. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Relevant discussion on WT:HED

A discussion relevant to this article is currently taking place on WT:HED (section) on the wider picture of WP:BOOSTERISM across university articles. Please see the relevant section if you wish to contribute, as any consensus made there may end up impacting this article, and it would be sensible to get involved earlier rather than going through any discussion it again if it affects this page. Your views and input would be most welcome Shadowssettle_(talk) 10:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

British English Oxford spelling

User:SwissArmyGuy has added the template: use British English Oxford spelling. I would prefer to continue to use British English as it is better know. What do other editors think? The article currently uses "organised" rather than the Oxford spelling "organized" (with one exception). TSventon (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, but there is no exception within the Oxford dictionary to concern this. --SwissArmyGuy (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

The current text uses 'organised', and 'organising' but the -ize spelling is a sort of shibboleth for Oxford spelling in that particular case. William Avery (talk) 13:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I think we should use BE OE, in the spirit of ENGVAR (note- I wouldn't extend this to U of O articles). Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Just to note that User:SwissArmyGuy has recently been indefinitely blocked with extreme prejudice. The talk page makes remarkable reading. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• I have removed the tag as the article uses standard British spelling and no one had followed SwissArmyGuy's suggestion of changing it. TSventon (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Colonial ties deletions

To maintain ranking there needs to be the removal of any reference to colonialism regarding the university. These tend to include heads of administration or so called rulers within the colonies and legislators thereof with concern to the slavery acts. These tend to not be sourced correctly or relevant at all to the subjects at hand.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:1811:2c21:f400:cdcd:51ed:b8f1:8157 (talk) 08:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you have something particular in mind? Please give examples as I don't want to go through the whole article looking for wording that offends you. Deb (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes indeed, the heading of law of notable alumni needs to be research on a frequent basis to uphold aforementioned requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:2C21:F400:CDCD:51ED:B8F1:8157 (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Are you talking about this section, and if so, which entries do you think are problematic? Deb (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course, the prerequisites are to keep certain references out of the article including those to the 3rd Baronet, Sir William Dolben, the 1st Marquess of Ripon and with some caution the promotion of Winston Churchill. There should in no case be mention of the 1788 Slave Trade Act. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:2C21:F400:BD60:69F7:C09F:92A3 (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

None of these are mentioned, do you have any constructive suggestions? Spike 'em (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Have it your way, I have only tried to prevent further damage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:2C21:F400:BD60:69F7:C09F:92A3 (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It is still not at all clear what you are suggesting. If you are suggesting that any mention of colonialism, or those involved with it, be removed, then this is not WP:NPOV. Spike 'em (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the unregistered person is talking about articles like Slave Trade Act 1788 which refer to the university, not this article specifically. Per WP:NPOV, we have no interest in whitewashing the history of Oxford or "maintain[ing] ranking". 2A02:1811:2C21:F400:BD60:69F7:C09F:92A3, what relation to the university do you have? — Bilorv (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Alternative reality

@Jonathan A Jones:, you have reverted a change by an IP editor from alternate reality to alternative reality (referring to Philip Pullman's work. Can you explain whu alternative reality is incorrect? An internet searcg (e,g. https://www.colesandlopez.com/blog/alternative-reality) suggests it may be a question of WP:ENGVAR, with alternative reality more common in the UK. TSventon (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

I would say the "alternate reality" is standard in the UK for the literary genre, while "alternative reality" is used rarely except in theoretical physics or when making accusations against political opponents (compare with "alternative facts"). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Images

The edit war about the Bhutto and Ghandi images, is not just about them. The Ghandi version also has an image of Dorothy Hodgkin replacing one of Malala Yousafzai and deletes text about Malala Yousafzai. I think it should be discussed here. --Bduke (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I have combined the images that are being fought over. I think both can be in the article. If you disagree, discuss it here before reverting my changes.--Bduke (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Malala isn't a scientist. Spike 'em (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, where do we move her to? --Bduke (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

In the text I have added her under "Politics". No view on the images. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

This edit was by an admin!! Strewth. No refs, wrong header.... Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I was amazed by that as well, but your fix is reasonable so no harm done in the end. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry. I am over 80 and was not good yesterday. I should not have been editing then. I have not used the admin tools for some time and I plan to hand them back. --Bduke (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I have done that.--Bduke (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Public or private

Is there consensus for changing the type of university in the infobox from Public research university, which has been stable for over a year? I think that this should not be changed without discussion.

User:42.110.165.13 changed the type of university in the infobox to Private research university (redlink) and then Private (a disambiguation page) and I reverted them both times. User:Deb did you mean to revert my edit but warn the IP account user? TSventon (talk) 18:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I meant to revert the IP. Maybe we got there simultaneously. Deb (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

There has been a very long running debate on this point without clear consensus, but a vague preponderance for "public". The underlying problem is that the public/private dichotomy is essentially a US based concept and does not map well onto systems in other countries such as the UK. The article correctly makes clear that Oxford is neither simply a public nor a private university but has aspects of both. Personally I think that the infobox field should simply be left blank. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree. The public/private divide in Oxford is so complex, we can not come to a simple answer.--Bduke (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

It is not a US-based concept; the US is almost 50/50 private and public institutions whereas for the UK most are public, including Oxford.

Source for Oxford being a public university? I could not find an WP:RS describing it as public from a cursory search. If we were to engage in original research, Oxford receives little direct public funding unlike actual public universities (in the US sense) and is not under state control, neither directly or indirectly (via a state-appointed board or similar). 15 (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Monthly fees

How much do you have to pay monthly to study drama? Peace mars 21 (talk) 07:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTFORUM : article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article. Question is moot anyway: I don't think it is possible to study drama at Oxford. Spike 'em (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Peace mars 21 for questions not about improving articles try an online search or Wikipedia:Reference desk. TSventon (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Missing department?

Working on Gillian Peele I was surprised to find no article on Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford or any similar title - and not even a list of departments to which I could redirect it. Many other departments appear in {{University of Oxford}} but not this, and it isn't linked in articles such as Andrew Hurrell. It seems a strange omission (though I'm not familiar with Oxford and its ways). DPIR leads elsewhere and would need to become a dab page, or at least acquire a hatnote, if/when the article was created. PamD 12:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

PamD the names of the divisions in {{University of Oxford}} (such as Social Sciences) are linked to a list of departments at Divisions of the University of Oxford which has a number of redlinks. It is often difficult to find independent sources for departments such as Department of Social Policy and Intervention, which is tagged for overeliance on primary sources. Politics and International Relations may well be notable and Gillian Peele has helpfully cowritten Forging a discipline : a critical assessment of Oxford's development of the study of politics and international relations in comparative perspective, which is available via Oxford Scholarship in the Wikipedia Library. TSventon (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@TSventon: Ah, thanks. I didn't think to follow that link from the template, and I didn't notice any link from the main university article to that list. I'd noticed the book: might have a go at creating an article on the dept. Thanks. PamD 18:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@PamD:, would a redirect at Departments of the University of Oxford help make the list more easily findable? The word divisions in the university article is linked to the list twice, but that only helps if you know you are loooking for divisions. Ping me if you write the article. TSventon (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Also I have changed DPIR into a disambiguation page. TSventon (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@TSventon: I think I looked at the TOC, expecting to find a relevant subheading under "Organisation". If I'd clicked there I'd have found a "see also" to Category:Departments of the University of Oxford, which of course doesn't help with red links. Perhaps a brief subsection "Academic units" or "Divisions and departments" could include the introductory paragraph of Divisions of the University of Oxford, with a link to that full article? At present "divisions" is linked twice, as you say: in the lead (which I skipped) and the "central governance" section, which I think I also skipped as it doesn't sound like academic units! I suppose "divisions" are slightly similar to what other universities would call "faculties", it's certainly not a term which is clear to outsiders. If nothing else, perhaps add Divisions of the University of Oxford to the "See also"? PamD 23:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC) (apols for mis-spelled ping: PamD 23:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC))

@TSventon: I've added "our" DPIR to the dab page. PamD 23:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@TSventon: Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford now created, added to {{University of Oxford}}, DPIR dab page updated, and a redirect from Department of Politics and International Relations as no other article title uses it (removed a duff link to Kent's School of..., from Florian Bieber, as there seems no immediate likelihood of an article on it beyond the list entry on the University's page). I think that's all done and dusted. Scope for someone else to expand from the book source etc, I'm sure, but I think this is a solid enough little stub for now. And made a redirect from your suggestion of Departments of the University of Oxford above: might help someone looking for departments (I see that Divisions of the University of Oxford is "complete and up to date as of September 2018": has nothing changed since then?) Thanks for your help. PamD 12:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@PamD:, thank you for writing the article, I may read the book to find out why late departmentalization was possibly detrimental. I expect the DAB page will be tweaked by a DAB specialist in due course. I did a couple of minor updates to the divisions page.

Other page watchers, feel free to improve anything discussed above. TSventon (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• St-Peters College Oxford Coat Of Arms.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kellogg College Oxford Coat Of Arms.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

'Adventure and exploration'

'Adventure and exploration' is a deeply euphemistic phrase, it should read 'Adventure, exploration and colonialism' at the very least, if not just 'colonialism'Faust.TSFL (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• J. R. R. Tolkien, 1940s.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Criminal alumni

I am finding that the list of alumni is strongly biased positive, with no space for the bad ones that no doubt exist in such an old+large institution. I came here looking for the notorious Ruja Ignatova who is an alumna, and she cannot be the only one. 88.19.254.158 (talk) 11:43, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

With regard to that particular case, has it ever struck you that claims of notorious fraudsters about where they were educated might be less than entirely accurate? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2022

https://www.sjc.ox.ac.uk/discover/news/professor-james-maynard-awarded-prestigious-fields-medal/

Number of Fields medalists should be updated from 3 to 4 with James Maynard winning the 4th recently. Softlight11 (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Softlight11 done, thank you. TSventon (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

 Closing 💜  melecie  talk - 10:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Overlinking

Grimes2, I had a look at your edit removing overlinking per MOS:OVERLINK. How does the tool work, if I put back Oxford Blue and link private schools to Independent school (United Kingdom), will it recommend changing them again the next time you run it? Also, why delink History, but not Modern Languages and Geography? TSventon (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I think, it will change again. Afaik, the tool looks for common "key words" from a list. Grimes2 (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Global Ranking for Oxford from US News & World Report

Why is the global ranking for Oxford from US News & World Report not showing up on the main article page? Aceusa (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)