Talk:Lancaster University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Universities (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New photos[edit]

It has been almost a year since any new photos were uploaded. I don't have a digital camera, but if someone could take the time to take some photos I think we could do with photos of: 1) the new sports centre 2) LICA 3) Bailrigg House (as an example of one of the only pre-60s buildings on campus) 4) more college accommodation such as the Grizedale townhouses and any other relevant photos. Probably also an idea to take them on a relatively sunny day - which is going to be difficult at this time of the year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokistorm1 (talkcontribs) 20:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Your wish fulfilled- enjoy.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

George Fox Six[edit]

I've just removed this for the second time. Its not clear that its notable, if it is there are other incidents such as the Craig Affair and the '75 Occupation which are more significant. ----Snowded TALK 22:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop obsessing over policy, guidelines and other bureaucracy and focus on content instead. A major event in the university's recent history was on that page for a good 7 years, until you come along and unilaterally remove it. Sure, people have edited it down slowly but surely, removing all the sourced material but the content remained. You should also check up on policy, last I checked, all editors were equal, regardless of their username or IP. What makes you more important than me? Learn to edit properly, without making assumptions. I've re-added, in a more appropriate position, with sources and a bit more detail. It is relevant to the university, and was heavily reported in national media. It was also broadcast on North West Tonight, and on the radio stations in the area. The NUS and Liberty were supporters of the students, along with notable academics who signed a petition at the time (I can't post a direct link to it, as it is a filtered site here, but a google search for George Fox Six Petition will return it).- (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Cool it. FThere might be a case for a section on controversies in which case the other two cases I mention should be included but I doubt any of them are really notable in the broader scheme of things. Happy to agree its referenced but so are many things. I don't think its notable, even if it was the entry is excessive. What do other editors think? ----Snowded TALK 22:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
There did used to be a controversy section, after a number of university staff members attempted to delete any mention of controversy at the university back in 2006 IIRC. It had issues regarding expansion at the time as well as other aspects. The section was obviously heavily edited down to this single blurb and then moved into a rather odd section, although I could see a tenuous link there somewhere, as the conference at the time was over venture capitalist funding for research, discussing changing the way the university funded students doing PhDs and the like, but as I say, its tenuous.
Also, saying I should cool it is funny, considering you basically said my view was invalid simply because I post from an IP. As you like instantly linking to policy when someone posts on your talk page, take a look at this essay WP:HUMAN.
Now, as I say, on notability, it was a nationally reported incident covered in the Guardian, TES, on a BBC News show, (as mentioned), along with local media coverage. It was even brought up again by LUSU in 2011 when the vice chancellor announced his retirement.
Why do you say it isn't notable?- (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I am happy with the paragraph as it now is, but I agree with the point at the top of this section that the Craig Affair was much more notable and a much bigger media splash. I refer to the affair in 1972 if I recall the year correctly. I was a member of staff then and on the University Council. It was a big agenda item on Council for many meetings. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It should be added to the article then. There is at least one book about it which could be used for some sourcing, and there's a slightly less notable entry in the online newsletter 'subtext' by David Craig too.- (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed Brian - I was one of the "Lancaster 25" (expelled and reinstated) in 1975 and it was all over the press. At one point Adereth, Threfeld and myself threatened to throw Charles Clark (then NUS President) into the canal if he didn't provide more support! Happy days. The Craig Affair was 1971 I think. We really need some references on both. ----Snowded TALK 23:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The Craig affair was in the 1971 - 72 academic year. I was away on sabbatical at Oxford, but returned for every Council meeting and it was discussed at most of them, if I recall correctly. Do you have access to the book mentioned above. I do not here in Australia. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Lancaster University → ? – Should be University of Lancaster, we have a reference for that being the official name. We need consistency in UK university articles. See University of Oxford, for example. All the universities that are officially "University of X" also have a colloquial "X University" equivalent. We should use the correct names in the encyclopedia - they are hardly difficult to get your head around. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose There is already consistency with UK university articles - they'e virtually all at the current brand name that's actually used rather than the formal charter name when these differ. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Their website seems to indicate Lancaster University as it's most common name (WP:COMMONNAME)... Srsrox (talk) 21:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. I would suspect most people just say (and always have said) "I'm at Foo University" or just "I'm at Foo" and recently there has been a tendency for British universities to be oh-so-trendy and adopt the shortened form as their marketing name. However, the "University of Foo" title is, in most cases, still the official name, still the name on official documents and still the name on degree certificates. It's also the name that many of us who went to university before this unfortunate dumbing down exercise began still use when referring to their alma maters. This shortened form is simply used for marketing purposes with the assumption that modern yoof will see "University of Foo" as old-fashioned. It doesn't mean we should use it too. If WP:COMMONNAME is being used to support this, then in fact we should probably use Lancaster (university), as that's how most of its students probably refer to it (and always have done). Being as that's clearly silly, I think we should revert to University of Lancaster as being correct and still used by the vast majority of its graduates, bearing in mind it had an existence long before hip modern branding appeared on the scene in the last few years. What would you put on a CV? I'd certainly put "University of Foo", not "Foo University". I suspect most others would too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment If we're going for WP:COMMONNAME, how about Lancky Uni? No, before anyone bites, that wasn't a serious suggestion. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Coat of Arms removed?[edit]

Why has the coat of arms as the article's main image been removed? Can someone re-add it please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lokistorm1 (talkcontribs) 11:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, but I certainly support its removal. The coat of arms is used on degree certificates and... absolutely nothing else.
See the discussion, above, about whether Wikipedia should use the formal, rarely-used 'University of Lancaster' or the constantly-used 'Lancaster University'. The same WP:COMMONNAME principle applies to the coat of arms (obscure) and standard logo (routine).
If someone does re-add it, I propose that it's displayed low on the page, and emphatically not as the primary image. Ministry (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The Coat of Arms is used on the university's new logo -- HazhkTalk 15:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No. A red-and-grey variant of the Arms appears in the logo, alongside text - the Coat of Arms still isn't the logo, particularly not with the text omitted. The same WP:COMMONNAME argument about giving priority to the one which is actually used still applies.
The Arms is incidental, only seen by graduates on their degree certificates, and absolutely nowhere else. This Wikipedia page is the only time I've seen it in years, which only diminishes the page as an accurate description of its subject.
I'd strongly support reverting this change, and putting the correct logo back at the top. I'm a little uncomfortable about doing it myself: though I don't represent the University at Wikipedia, it is my employer, so I try to avoid any edits which might be seen as a conflict of interest. Ministry (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)