Talk:Hatfield College, Durham

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

Motto[edit]

If the college insists on a contemporary colloquialism, would not 'Leaders (sic) of the pack' be closer to the original Latin ? Lonstan 16:45, 13 Oct 2009

The motto literally translates as "Either the first or among the first" The meaning of the motto is that the people of Hatfield are the Leaders or those who guide the Leaders. It is part of the culture formed in the college of the lower classes arriving and becoming part of the upper echelon. Be the best you can be is a commonly used phrase, and commonly used in Latin. The colloquialism is a mistranslation of the Latin and of the spirit of the phrase. The incorrectly stays.SPACKlick 16:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia's core content-guiding policies, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. In a nutshell, Wikipedia is here only to publish that which is commonly accepted; for which our standard is the provision of a reputable and reliable source for that information. That the colloquialism is used is a fact (Source: [1]). That it is incorrect is only an opinion, as far as I can tell - a colloquialism is by its nature only an approximation at the meaning of a phrase, and whether it is correct or not will always be a matter of opinion. This isn't to say your opinion is wrong; but Wikipedia has policies to avoid us having to decide on such things, by specifying that we only include verifiable and published facts. TSP 16:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Barber himself claimed the common translation as a mistake and a misunderstanding of the spirit of the phrase in one of his speeches to the college. I doubt there's a published version. However the colloquialism follows neither the spirit nor the letter of the phrase (which is no way pre-temporaly verbal but situational) and as such the colloquialism is incorrect.

This lower class arrivee (early '70's) prefers the Latin motto, since it is an aspiration which I aspired to. 71.191.165.19 (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will Carling[edit]

I notice Will carling is on the list of notable alumni yet on his wikipedia article and other sites it says Will went to Hild Bede andI can find no mention of him having gone to Hatfield other than this page. Can someone confirm or deny either way? 129.234.4.10 11:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list of Durham Alumni has him at Bede but as of yet no reliable external sources. Looks bogus to me. 127.184.23.73 13:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
"Will Carling was a student of Psychology at Hatfield College (1985-1988)" [2] TSP 17:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Alumni[edit]

Why is Richard Metcalfe listed as a Notable Alumni? Not sure if he ever achieved any level of outstanding merit whatsoever. Did he author that line himself? In the same spirit, why am I not listed? Famous emigre who now observes the Washington, DC, power elite from the sidewalk. 71.191.165.19 (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too many lists? Organ scholars, JCR exec, etc[edit]

I note the list of organ scholars was mostly removed the other day as "non-notable" except for Kingsley Charles Dunham, who has a Wikipedia article (although he's not famous as an organist). However, the list has started to be populated again. Really, the subsection needs to go completely, or be referenced - have any of the former scholars or chapel directors gone on to a cathedral or other musical institution, for example? I do wonder whether there are too many lists on this article, though - I propose that the full JCR Exec list be reduced to a paragraph and a link to the list on the website. The buildings list is a little unnecessary as well. I think I'll do a little pruning now, but it would be good to get a consensus. Rob (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hatfield College Chapel.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Hatfield College Chapel.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second oldest?[edit]

Hatfield was not the second oldes college, Teh college of the venerable bede was. Hatfield has been associated with the university second longest (after university college) should the wording not be edited to reflect this? SPACKlick (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hatfield College, Durham. 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) 05:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hatfield College, Durham/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bait30 (talk · contribs) 02:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this on.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 02:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to quickfail this. Here's some of the reasons why:[reply]

Well written
  • The lead has lots of issues a per MOS:LEAD
    • For example, it does a poor job at MOS:PARA. Of the five paragraphs in the lead, three are one sentence, one is two sentences, and the other is three sentences.
    • MOS:LEADREL: a practise later introduced at Keble College, Oxford and eventually worldwide. This sentence isn't cited and the info is not found anywhere else in the body. A£5 million refurbishment to the Jevons building, including the bar and student accommodation, was unveiled in October 2018. This isn't mentioned anywhere in the body so it seems very unnecessary for the lead.
  • The "See also" section should not have internal links per MOS:SEEALSO.
Verifiable with no original research
  • The "Academic dress" and "Grace" sections are completely unsourced.
  • There are issues with many of the refs.
    • A lot of the refs are WP:PRIMARY or not WP:INDEPENDENT.
      • For example: "Hatfield SCR". Durham University. Retrieved 20 March 2020.
      • The first paragraph of the "Student body" section is based entirely on primary, self-published sources. That means that the final sentence of the paragraph WP:SYNTHESIS.
      • The first paragraph of the "Admissions" section is entirely based on primary, self-published sources. Again, SYNTHESIS.
      • This is still higher than many Oxbridge Colleges: this is SYNTHESIS
    • All the links from https://community.dur.ac.uk/ are dead.
    • Using the Wayback Machine, I was able to determine that the only source that is used in the first paragraph of the "Dunham Court" section doesn't even contain the word "Dunham".

These are just some of the issues I found after a cursory look into the article. In my opinion, the quality of the lead and the issues with the refs are just too much. I'm sorry to do this, and I hope this doesn't stop you from improving the article further and eventually getting it to GA status.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 05:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hatfield College, Durham/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 03:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I'll pick this article up. Note, this review will be included in the July 2021 Backlog event, thus other reviewers may also see this and leave comments accordingly. Especially due to the length of this article, it'll take me about a day to get a full review out. I'll ping you when I am finished, should you have any questions related to the review, please post them here for archive's sake. Etriusus (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Leonstojka: I have completed my initial review of the article. There appear to be a large number of sourcing, image, and some prose issues that need resolving. I cleaned up a good amount of the grammatical errors myself. The image issues, in particular, I am worried about due to copyright. Even at a second glance, there are a few more images with similar issues that I didn't flag initially. At this time, I believe that the issues on this page may be too numerous to completely resolve in 7 days but I have given my best to make sure you have a full review/feedback. Please let me know if you can handle resolving these issues within the time frame alotted. Etriusus (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Etriusus: Hi thanks for taking the time to review. I think I can handle this, I have just made a number of edits dealing with sourcing and prose, in line with your comments below (more edits to follow). The imaging stuff will be trickier because I can't remember where I found a few of the images, so may well have to remove and replace with something else. About the crest image in particular: the source appears to be the hatfield section of the university website as it existed in 2007. I will go through the internet archive to find it asap. --Leonstojka (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leonstojka: Hey, I see you're making good progress on the edits I suggested. Let me know when the rework is done and I will give the article another pass-through. Don't worry about the encroaching 7-day deadline, I will extend it by a few days so you can get this draft done but don't feel the need to rush through. Etriusus (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leonstojka: What is the status of your edits? Giving the article a cursory review, it looks significantly better. I want to be certain you are finished before I give my next round of feedback. Please provide an update when the article will be ready, as I cannot keep these reviews open indefinitely. Etriusus (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Etriusus: Hi, sorry I meant to send you a message yesterday but I got distracted by something else. Yes I think the article is now ready for another look. --Leonstojka (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leonstojka: I've kicked back a fresh set of edits. They are very minor but necessary. Please make an additional pass through the article for any puffery (WP:PUFFERY) I may have missed. I cleaned up some grammatical issues. Etriusus (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Etriusus: I have now had another run through the article and made a couple of edits, otherwise I cannot see anything that stands out. --Leonstojka (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leonstojka: Everything seems to be in order. I made a couple of minor edits and everything looks to be ready. I will give the article one final run-through before signing off on GA status. I know it was hard-fought, so congratulations on passing the GA review. Realistically, I will get the GA status put up tomorrow afternoon (it is getting late in my part of the world and I want to read it once more with fresh eyes). If you have any concerns, please feel free to message me. Etriusus (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template for GAN[edit]

Templates for my own convenience:  Done

Strikethrough

Highlight

Common errors: WP:CITELEAD, Wikipedia:CITESTYLE, WP:PUFFERY


1. It is reasonable well written:

I see this is British English, can you place a banner in the talk section for this?
the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct
The sentence The establishment of the college in 1846 as a furnished and catered residence with set fees was then a revolutionary idea, but later became general practice at student residences. is a bit confusing. Cut the word "then" and clarify what the term student residencies means, as of now, it links directly to the student dorm page. Etriusus (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a typo? University College Etriusus (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see it's not a typo, please either specify University College, Durham, or link it. Etriusus (talk) 01:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the 18th century the building became a coaching inn, The Red Lion – a stopping point for coaches traveling between London and Edinburgh. During this time it was also used to host concerts, likely featuring the work of composers like Charles Avison and John Garth. Please be more specific on what building you're referring to. The exact passage of time and what building is which, or if there are multiple buildings, is unclear. Ideally, the first three sentences of this section need to be clarified. Etriusus (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please define what A and B accommodation blocks are before discussing their renaming. Etriusus (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reword the sentence Moving south, visitors will soon reach the Rectory. The article is an encyclopedia, not a tour of the college. Etriusus (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Please remove citations from the introduction. See WP:CITELEAD. Etriusus (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


2. It is factually accurate and verifiable It contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

All inline citations are from reliable sources;
It contains no original research;
In June 2020, following a referendum, the JCR elected to become an independent charity and is currently undergoing this transition. This sentence has a citation need banner. Please add a citation or remove it. Etriusus (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The List of past masters subsection lacks sourcing for all members, only citing about half. Please add a citation for these individuals. Etriusus (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "Academic dress" section lacks sourcing. Etriusus (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph Formals take place twice a week on.. lacks sourcing. Etriusus (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The line Each common room acts as a separate... lacks sourcing. Etriusus (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the section "Sports and societies" the sentences:
1. Notable former members of the...., 
2. Will Carling, Will Greenwood, and Marcus Rose are the most notable former.. 
3. The entire "Other sports and societies" subsection only has one source discussing SHAPED, nothing else. There are 3 unsourced sentences.
The sentences about alumni, starting with Hatfield alumni are active through... and Some Hatfielders with more idiosyncratic career do not have a source and instead, there is a footnote. That footnote is on a different topic. If the information for this passage is within the footnote, please pull out the associated sources and cite them accordingly to avoid confusion. Etriusus (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig is picking up the sentence Dinners where an attempt to read the grace in English was not popular as directly from another source. Please cross-reference this with Earwig since there were some other, minor word choice patterns that also came upon the copyright detections tools. Correcting every instance is not necessary, but the aforementioned sentence is required. Link. Etriusus (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3. It is broad in its coverage

It addresses the main aspects of the topic;
It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
The section "other buildings reads somewhat like a promotion/tour of the campus. Please remove phrasing like "a minute away". Giving directions to different locations on the campus is too detailed. Please correct this and any additional promotional material/directions. Etriusus (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


4. Is it neutral?;

It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
A bit of Puffery: decrepit structure. Unless this is a direct quote, remove the word decrepit. Etriusus (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5. It is stable

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No ongoing edit wars or page instability observed. Almost all edits within the last month were from the same user. Etriusus (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images, where possible and appropriate;

Page is illustrated but not overly so, all illustrations are appropriate. Etriusus (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Open Street Maps can be used but an Open Database Liscence must be posted somewhere. I also found that linking this page here onto the image's sourcing will also suffice. Placing this link in the sourcing page along with the site it was extracted from should be fine. Etriusus (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I dug around and found the Openstreetmaps template on this page here
The Image "Hatfield College Durham crest" has a confusing caption, no publication date, and no sourcing. Etriusus (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The image "Hatfield College Formal" lists the date as 2018 and 1965, and as "own work". This might actually need to be taken down from the commons for copyright violation. Etriusus (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The images "Frank Byron Jevons" and "Portrait of tracy philipps" also listed as "own work" but are clearly from external sources. I need the original sourcing to confirm dates and no copyright violation. Etriusus (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
Captions present Etriusus (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


The second pass through the article[edit]

  1. As the 20th century progressed,... This sentence uses adj. such as irreverent, ironically, etc. Please clean this up as it is Puffery. If you think the wording is justified, please let me know. Etriusus (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. the modern sense This phrasing is a bit confusing. The sentance may need to be reworded. Etriusus (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "desperate", "Unhappy", "most famous" Please remove Puffery Etriusus (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. For 20 years Hatfield cooperated with nearby Castle Please clean up this caption, it comes across as too coloqelial/informal. Etriusus (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Is "pseudo-Georgian" the correct term for this archetecture? I would reword this sentance to attribute this dicription as a quote. Etriusus (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Today, double protein portions for university Notability, unless this is tied to a more specific event, trivia about the school/goings on for the daily life of a student are not incuded. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article advice for more details. Etriusus (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hatfield_College,_Durham&oldid=1217810648"