Talk:University of Chester

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Universities (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Cheshire (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire 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.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

It appears that University College Chester Alumni like this article so much that they've nicked it for their official history page in violation of the GFDL: http://www.chesteralumni.com/index.php?page_id=57.

Disambiguation[edit]

There is a link to [[Development]] on this page that is linking to a disambiguation page. I'm not sure which (if any) of the more specific pages on types of development would be a better link in this context. Could someone please review the choices available and either re-direct the link or delete it? Thanks.Chidom talk  08:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

University ratings[edit]

(I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.)

There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#University ratings. Timrollpickering 22:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

staff change[edit]

Hi: i have checked the university staff details in the file attaced. its 1242 previously it was written 1500. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amadbabar (talkcontribs) 21:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph: "One of the oldest higher ed institutions" and "established 1839"[edit]

Both of these statements are tenuous. The university gained university status in 2005; it may be said that it "has origins dating back to 1839", but to suggest that it was established in 1839 and that it is therefore one of the oldest institutions in the UK, is simply not true. The University of Birmingham, for example, has origins dating back to a an 1825 medical school, but it still regardless achieved university status in 1900 - and this counts as when it was established. Bearing in mind Chester didn't even recieve University status in 1992 with all the other New Universities, it's technically one of the newest institutions, and if anyone wants to jig the page to make the university sound more prestigious, maybe they'd be more wise to paint the uni as being contemporary rather than old! --Tomsega (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't agree i don't see how saying that it is One of the oldest higher ed institutions is tenuous as it is one of the oldest higher ed institutions if you agree with the definition of a teacher training college as a higher ed, How ever i don't think its that big a deal to be honest i would how ever switch around Higher Education College to College of Higher Education which more accurately reflects how the university (from what i've been lead to believe) viewed its self, but then again i don't think it makes that much difference. Lodi01 (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
It's true that it was one of the earliest higher ed colleges, but to use that fact and then go on to imply that it is one of Britain's oldest academic institutions altogether is muddying the water. It is a new university, which used to be quite an old teaching college. That is all. In comparison with other universities it is not particularly old. Even if we went with the 1839 date rather than 2005, it probably wouldn't make the top 20 (bearing in mind how many other institutions were 'established' as colleges and medical schools, etc). --Tomsega (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I take the point about age and university status, though it is worth pointing out that the university is a direct continuation of the original teacher training college and did not fundamentally change in form when it was awarded university status (unlike your other quoted examples). Nevertheless, Chester is one of the oldest higher education institutions because teaching training has always been considered higher education, whereas medical schools and the like, to my knowledge, were not.
I have replaced the current paragraph with a new paragraph, which is actually mostly taken from an older version of this article. It mentions the university's current activities first (as a lead should) and mentions all stages of the university's development. It also reintroduces the founders, who were very noteworthy people. Hopefully, this will satisfy all involved. - Green Tentacle (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Made one minor change by adding the date it became a university as its rather important but i think its a fair paragraph. Lodi01 (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The university has just published a new history of its self on its website where it states "It is one of the oldest English higher education establishments of any kind, pre-dating all but Oxford, Cambridge, London and Durham," this may be the answer to the disagreement over the use of the term. The webpage is http://www.chester.ac.uk/about/the-university/history Lodi01 (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead section[edit]

User:Vanpump keeps on reverting the article's lead section to his/her version, which puts undue emphasis on the institution's original name and re-arranges the brief history into a bizarre order. At least two editors, myself included, have attempted to change the text back, but he/she is persistent.

In particular, he/she keeps on changing this sentence:

'The institution was founded in 1839 by William Gladstone and Lord Derby as the country's first purpose-built teacher training college and has since evolved into a college of higher education, then a university college and finally a university in 2005.'

to

'The institution became a university in 2005. It was founded as Chester Diocesan Training College in 1839 by William Gladstone and Lord Derby as the country's first purpose-built teacher training college, later evolving into a college of higher education and then a university college.'

The first version is clearly more logically ordered (history is nearly always best in chronological order, particularly in a short overview like this) and more concise. There is no need to mention the institution's original name as the section already clearly mentions it was a teacher training college (the first, in fact) and the old name is no longer used (in fact, it was rarely used at the time, with 'Chester College' being more common). The history section is adequate for the institution's previous names. It has, after all, had six - which is far too many to mention in the lead section. According to WP:LEAD, the lead section should 'avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions'.

Note that the established lead was established by consensus (see above).

I feel that I must point out that Vanpump's edits to university articles have been contentious before. User:Mholland has pointed out his/her errors not once, but twice. Vanpump responded by removing the posts (and another one asking him/her to provide edit summaries). User:Bacchus87 later pointed out the how unconstructive Vanpump's edits to this article are, but he just blanked the page; another user restored it, but Vanpump simply blanked it again.

I hope this explains why I am 'openly' posting here, rather than taking the issue up with Vanpump directly. - Green Tentacle (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

PS - 'University' with a capital 'U' is perfectly acceptable, as it is an abbreviation of 'University of Chester'.

Have improved the history section. All previous names and dates of the college are dealt with in history section. Too complex for the lead section so have removed. As for my previous edits - it's good that they were pointed out.Vanpump (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC).
Thank you for responding. Personally, I am fine with the shorter lead section, though I suspect others may object. Many of your edits to the history section, such as the ones that remove superfluous wording, seem worthy. However, I am not sure why you have merged so many paragraphs. Many now cover far too much information (the first history paragraph, for example, jumps from 1842 to 1910 between sentences!). I am also not convinced by the subheadings. I do not think the institution's names are the best way to organise the information, as the names rarely tally with developments at the institution and they sort of imply that major changes happened each time the name changed (which is not the case). Given the whole history is only about 400 words, I don't think there is any need for them at all. Also, there is nothing wrong with red links: they help Wikipedia grow. Thoughts? - Green Tentacle (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the history section was very long even though it was patchy with huge periods which aren't covered, so the paragraphs were very short. It was pretty unreadable. Separating it into subsections does cause jumps in time between sentences at the moment but this is only because the gaps need filling in. This may make it easier to fill in those gaps. The history section at present mainly refers to changes in name so it seems logical to split it up like that. If, when more is added to the history section, it can be seen that the major changes occurred at different times, or that there are more appropriate periods to use as subsections then I'm fine with that. The lead section needs expanding now but as the name changes are covered in detail in the next section down, I thought that they shouldn't be repeated in the lead. Maybe they can be when the lead is a bit longer. Vanpump (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree with you there. A four-hundred word history is not 'very long' and therefore, at the present time, does not need subheadings. Also, short paragraphs are not 'unreadable' - they are easier to read than longer paragraphs (which is why all newspapers and news websites use short paragraphs). Furthermore, it is much easier to add information to the end of a paragraph than add it between sentences. For these reasons, I am removing the subheadings and restoring the paragraph breaks. I have also restored some information that seemed to get stripped out in recent revisions. - Green Tentacle (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Establishment date[edit]

The infobox contains a field for the date on which the institution was established. The most current revision lists "2005" and then "1839". Putting the dates backwards chronologically seems wrong to me. My preference is to remove 2005 outright: this institution was in no real sense "established" in 2005. Both the university and the newspaper guides give 1839 as the foundation date. — mholland (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree. 'Establish' means set up on a firm or permanent basis. When university status was awarded is a different matter entirely. I have therefore removed the 2005 date from the infobox. It is, of course, still mentioned in the history section. - Green Tentacle (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the "foundation" of what was to become The University of Chester occurred in 1839. However, it was established as a University in 2005; 'establish' and 'found' are not exact synonyms. The Guardian University Guide does not give a date, The Times is behind a paywall, and The Complete lists both the date of foundation and the date University status was gained.
Furthermore, the single definition of 'establish' given above is too narrow. Another definition - taken from the same source as the one above - determines the establish to mean "achieve permanent acceptance or recognition for". This definition of establish is clearly used on all other UK university pages, as they discretely list the date they "achieve permanent acceptance or recognition for" their foundation and their establishment as universities (unless the dates are identical).
By deviating from the standard set by the pages of other UK universities, The University of Chester page unnecessarily obfuscates the definition of 'established'. The addition of a single line indicating when University status was gained would remove this aberration.
At the very least, the context (i.e. the addition of "Chester Diocesan Training College") should remain, as without this it is implied that The University of Chester was created in 1839, which is simply not the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.216.51 (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, according to Oxford, 'founded' is pretty much a synonym for 'established'. The former is defined as 'establish or originate (an institution or organization)', while the latter is 'set up on a firm or permanent basis'.
Anyway, the definition of establish(ed) used — 'set up on a firm or permanent basis' — is not too narrow. An infobox is only meant to have brief information. Your second, preferred, definition of establish — 'achieve permanent acceptance or recognition for' — is supported by an example: 'he had established himself as a film star'. In other words, become well known. Given neither 1839 or 2005 are when the institution became well known, then this definition is clearly not what the infobox requires.
The infobox guidelines say that the established field should be used for the 'date of establishment/founding. Give year if no exact date is available'. Clearly, this is 1839. It also says to use the start date template, not text explaining the dates. If other university pages have got this wrong, then this needs correcting, but clearly Chester's lead should be followed here.
You are over-emphasising the significance of the 'university' title. While this once meant a great change and an act of parliament had to be passed, this is no longer the case. Nothing about the institution changed when it was awarded a university title. It was awarded on the basis of what it was already doing. All that changed was the name. Yes, 'university' is a legally-protected title, but it was still just a name change. And Chester has changed its name many times. Arguably, it is when the institution started offering bachelor's degrees that was the biggest change to its status, as this is when it began acting as a university. Of course, all these dates are important and are included in the article's history section, but the infobox is for quick information. The institution was founded in 1839. - Green Tentacle (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Right, I’m going to respond to your points in the order you made ‘em.
‘Pretty much’ synonymous isn’t the same as exactly synonymous, which is why I used the qualifier 'exactly'. I understand the need for brevity, but so much is sacrificed by including just 1839 that it ceases to be an infobox and instead becomes a misinfobox. Besides, ‘2005 – gained University status 1839 – Chester Diocesan Training College’ is still very, brief and imparts far more knowledge, and in a far clearer manner, than simply ‘1839’ alone.
The reason I prefer the second definition of established is that it is the one used on every other UK university page. I’m no expert in semantics, but if in a certain situation one meaning of a word is overwhelmingly favoured, then that is surely the meaning that should take precedence. The example offered does not “in other words” merely mean well-known. However, even if it did, then changing the example from 'he had established himself as a film star' to ‘it had established itself as a university’ shows the correct context. Chester established itself as a university when it was given University status in 2005. Whether Chester was well-known or resembled a university before 2005 is totally irrelevant.
The date of establishment is not clearly 1839. As I said, I agree it was founded in some form (under a different title and with vastly different structures of governance and legal connotations) in 1839, but it was established as a university in 2005. If the infobox was amended to something along the lines of ‘Founded: 1839 (as Chester Diocesan Training College)’ rather than ‘Established: 1839’ then there would be no problem. The infobox template merely states that the standardised start date template should be used for the date. It does not forbid the use of text.
I do not believe I have over-emphasised the importance of University status. The title of ‘university’ is still extremely significant exactly because it is legally protected. Of course stuff like Acts of Parliament and Papal Bulls are now outdated, but even the most up-to-date way of creating a university, through the establishment of a Higher Education Corporation (HEC), presents a very clear break from the past. Chapter II of the Education Reform Act 1988 states repeatedly that the HEC is “established” (a word used 24 times in the Chapter) from the date of its inception. This establishment is distinct from the initial foundation of the institution that the HEC is formed to govern.
The University of Chester was legally established in 2005. It doesn’t matter if the change appeared to be cosmetic. To have an infobox with the title ‘University of Chester’ and, four lines beneath that, the date 1839 is totally wrong - the implication is that the University of Chester has existed since 1839. Adding a qualifying remark and the date of establishment as a university (in line with every other UK university) would fix this inaccuracy.
Moreover, degree-awarding powers are just a single criterion for University status, but they are not even a unique criterion for University status, as they are also a criterion for University College status. Plus, Chester did not exercise degree-awarding powers until 2005. However, none of that matters, as the only determinant of a university in the UK is whether it has been granted University status lawfully, all other things (such as the right to award degrees) are merely attributes of universities; whether the institution changed or not is irrelevant; the fact is, it was not a university until 2005.
As this is contentious subject - Tomsega queried a similar point in June 2009 and this establishment debate began in August 2009 - it seems to me that erring on the side of caution, and thus including more information, would be the natural choice. If your understanding of ‘established’ is correct, then including 2005 would only (very slightly) reduce the page’s brevity. However, if the understanding of ‘established’ that every other UK university page uses is correct, then by not including both 1839 and 2005, the page would be inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.216.51 (talk) 00:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
For someone so bothered about Wikipedia precedents, it seems strange that you refuse to follow the conventions on threading and signing your comments. I have threaded it for you.
‘Pretty much’ synonymous isn’t the same as exactly synonymous
The definitions of founded ('establish or originate (an institution or organization)') and establish ('set up on a firm or permanent basis') have the same meaning. Founded even uses 'establish' in its definition. Of course they are not word-for-word. That's how dictionaries work.
The reason I prefer the second definition of established
Since when was Wikipedia all about your personal preferences?
I’m no expert in semantics, but if in a certain situation one meaning of a word is overwhelmingly favoured, then that is surely the meaning that should take precedence.
Yes, it should. But use in a few Wikipedia articles does not change the entire English language.
changing the example from 'he had established himself as a film star' to ‘it had established itself as a university’ shows the correct context.
No, it doesn't. Both the meanings in your example are the secondary (according to Oxford) meaning of the word 'establish'. The one that means 'achieve permanent acceptance or recognition for'. Kiera Knightly probably started acting at school, but she established herself as a film star when she was in a Star Wars film, not when she started acting. Similarly, you could talk about a university establishing itself when it became recognised in some way, but we do not. Why? Because, in this field, the primary meaning of establish ('set up on a firm or permanent basis') is what the infobox is referring to. So we use that. In this case, that is 1839.
Chester established itself as a university when it was given University status in 2005.
How can Chester choose to establish itself and be given an establishment at the same time? That makes no sense at all.
Whether Chester was well-known or resembled a university before 2005 is totally irrelevant.
I know. That's why the primary definition of establish should be used. It's you that wants to use the secondary definition.
I agree it was founded in some form (under a different title and with vastly different structures of governance and legal connotations) in 1839
I pretty sure Oxford is run pretty differently now to how it originally was. Things change.
The title of ‘university’ is still extremely significant exactly because it is legally protected.
I know. That's why it's significance should be noted in the main text, not the infobox.
Chapter II of the Education Reform Act 1988 states repeatedly that the HEC is “established” (a word used 24 times in the Chapter) from the date of its inception.
Chester became a university under much more recent legislation than this.
the date 1839 is totally wrong - the implication is that the University of Chester has existed since 1839
It did exist. Not as a university, but it did exist. It didn't just spring from nowhere in 2005.
Moreover, degree-awarding powers...'
You've lost me. How is this relevant? No-one is trying to put the date of degree-awarding powers in the infobox.
the fact is, it was not a university until 2005
Yes, we all know this. But it existed (was established) before then.
The infobox template merely states that the standardised start date template should be used for the date. It does not forbid the use of text.
It does not forbid putting a picture of a rabbit there either.
I have changed the date back, which returns the article to its 'stable' state. I have also added dates to the former names list, which seems to be the key piece of information you want including in the infobox. There is now no need to have the university date earlier on. Unless you are seriously suggesting that the infobox should repeat the same information twice? - Green Tentacle (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Personally I feel that becoming a university was such a transformational event that it should be included in the Establishment section of the infobox. This is actually quite a standard approach, and in my view to not include this information here is actually misleading.
The article lead is clearly also in need of expansion. This should include a little bit on the institution's history, which should include both dates too (as the lead is supposed to be a stanalone introduction to the topic, which is impossible without this key information). Rangoon11 (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The trouble is that 'establishment' and 'university status' are too different things. Given that differing establishment and university status dates is a situation that applies to many universities (at least in the UK), perhaps the infobox should be modified to have two fields - 'established' (or 'founded') and 'university status' (or some similar wording). This would solve all disputes around the matter. I've no idea about how to go about suggesting/making this change, though.
I also agree that the lead is a little brief. The trouble is, the history is a little brief too, so I (personally) am not quite sure how to expand the lead without repeating a fair bit of the history (in particular, how many of the numerous name/status changes to include). Hopefully, someone else is willing to have a bash. - Green Tentacle (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Much if not all of the lead will be duplicated elsewhere in the article. That doesn't matter - the lead is supposed to be a standalone introduction to the topic, and a summary of the article.
You make a good suggestion about a change to the infobox fields. You could propose the change on the talk page of the infobox here : [1]. I would be prepared to support it if you alert me once you have made the posting. Pending such a change my view given above on the current infobox remains. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
it seems strange that you refuse to follow the conventions on threading and signing your comments
I know very little about Wikipedia. I am not ‘refusing’ to thread and sign; rather, I have no idea what they are. If they’re the colons, then I’ll put them in from now on. I hope my inexperience has not caused any inconvenience.
Of course they are not word-for-word. That's how dictionaries work.
Ok, so you agree that “‘Pretty much’ synonymous isn’t the same as exactly synonymous”, then?
Since when was Wikipedia all about your personal preferences?
I did not claim that Wikipedia was about my personal preferences. I used the word ‘preference’ in my post to make it clear that I was responding to the section of your 16:20, 15 July 2012 post, which began “your second, preferred, definition of establish”. I believe you are taking my comments out of context in an attempt to portray me as some sort of biased megalomaniac bogeyman, in the hope that such a characterisation would weaken my argument. I really have no interest in or connection to the University of Chester; I just have a lay interest in accuracy. In fact, I don’t even have a Wikipedia account; I just edit articles piecemeal when I believe information is out of date or inaccurate. I simply tried to clarify Chester’s infobox after looking at the page and noticing it was inconsistent with that of other UK unis.
Furthermore, in your August 2009 post on this subject, when mholland revealed that his “preference is to remove 2005 outright”, why did you not challenge him in a similar demagogic fashion? Instead of challenging him, you “completely agree[d]” with him. Is this not a contradiction?
Yes, it should. But use in a few Wikipedia articles does not change the entire English language.
I am glad you have conceded that, in this context, your definition is less common. I would, however, like to remind you that my argument does not simply rest on “a few Wikipedia articles”, as I have also referenced the Education Act 1988. I would put it to you that ignoring evidence will not change the English language either.
No, it doesn't. Both the meanings in your example are the secondary (according to Oxford) meaning of the word 'establish'… the primary meaning of establish ('set up on a firm or permanent basis') is what the infobox is referring to.
That's why the primary definition of establish should be used. It's you that wants to use the secondary definition.
The dictionary article makes no reference to there being a ‘primary’ or ‘secondary’ definition - this is a distinction that you have invented. All the dictionary article does is list the different definitions, and indeed, makes no indication that such a list should be interpreted as a hierarchy.
Similarly, you could talk about a university establishing itself when it became recognised in some way, but we do not.
Actually, people do (as evidenced by me disagreeing with you, other UK university pages, and Acts of Parliament) - that’s the source of this debate. A university becomes a university when it is recognised as such by the Government, before that it is merely a glint in the milkman's eye.
How can Chester choose to establish itself and be given an establishment at the same time? That makes no sense at all.
The University of Chester was established as a university when it was given University status in 2005. Simples!
I pretty sure Oxford is run pretty differently now to how it originally was. Things change.
“Things change” is not an argument, and it’s not evidence; it’s a platitude. I am not trying to make the point that nothing ever changes, in fact I agreed that things change in my previous post when I said things have moved on from the days of Papal Bulls. You are not engaging with my argument here; you are attacking a straw man. Besides, using Oxford as an example here is problematic, as it was sui generis and its early history is unclear. The University of Chester was established in the 21st Century, when the term ‘university’ was clearly defined in legal terms and also in terms of precedence.
I know. That's why it's significance should be noted in the main text, not the infobox.
You know “that the title of ‘university’ is still extremely significant exactly because it is legally protected”? Then why did you argue just two days ago that I was over-emphasising the importance of the title ‘University’?
Chester became a university under much more recent legislation than this.
Well, the Education Reform Act 1988 is still in effect (though it has been amended slightly, mainly in 1992), so once again, you are wrong, and once again, you have provided no evidence. You may know a lot about Wikipedia etiquette, but you certainly don’t know much about epistemology; you can’t simply assert your opinion as fact without any prior knowledge or form of citation.
It did exist. Not as a university, but it did exist. It didn't just spring from nowhere in 2005.
Again, you’re oversimplifying my argument. What existed before 2005 was not a university and therefore an infobox with ‘University of Chester’ followed four lines later by ‘1839’ is totally inaccurate.
You've lost me. How is this relevant? No-one is trying to put the date of degree-awarding powers in the infobox.
No, but I was refuting the section of your 16:20, 15 July 2012 post where you stated that “arguably, it is when the institution started offering bachelor's degrees that was the biggest change to its status, as this is when it began acting as a university.” I did this by pointing out that “degree-awarding powers are just a single criterion for University status, but they are not even a unique criterion” and, also, that “the only determinant of a university in the UK is whether it has been granted University status lawfully”.
Yes, we all know this. But it existed (was established) before then.
Not everyone knows that Chester was not a University until 2005. People go to encyclopaedias to discover information; when I need to know more about a certain university, I myself often just scan the important bits of the infobox and move on. The information presented in its current form is not correct and is liable to mislead.
It does not forbid putting a picture of a rabbit there either.
What line of argument are you trying to advance here? That everything not explicitly stated in templates is automatically invalid?
I have changed the date back, which returns the article to its 'stable' state.
To call ‘1839’ a "‘stable’ state" is an act of solipsism; the page is heavily regulated by you, to the point that 101 of the previous 500 edits on this page have been by you, and, when in the past other people have repeatedly tried to standardise the Chester article, you have repeatedly resisted and reverted. Why should your preference be considered the ‘stable’ version when you have no evidence to back up your (repeatedly contradictory) assertions? This whole kerfuffle began when you reverted my edit.
I have also added dates to the former names list, which seems to be the key piece of information you want including in the infobox. There is now no need to have the university date earlier on. Unless you are seriously suggesting that the infobox should repeat the same information twice?
You can’t unilaterally decide on a very weak compromise, implement it, and then assert that I would be the unreasonably party if I did not accept it. Surely such blatant politicking isn’t in the spirit of Wikipedia? I’ve previously offered a compromise (in the form of “1839 – Chester Diocesan Training College”, which would still from other universities, but would at least serve to remove any ambiguity), but I did not attempt to force it upon you. Regardless of whether dates are included elsewhere - in a far lower and less prominent position, I note - the simple fact is that ‘Established: 1839’ is not accurate when included four lines below the title ‘University of Chester’.
Furthermore, you have actually (yet again) contradicted yourself by doing this, as the infobox template for ‘Former names’ does not expressly state that dates can be used. The only guidance given is to list “Previous names the university was known by.”
In your 16:20, 15 July 2012 post, you rejected the idea of including ‘1839 – Chester Diocesan Training College’ on the following grounds: “It also says to use the start date template, not text explaining the dates. If other university pages have got this wrong, then this needs correcting, but clearly Chester's lead should be followed here.” By your own logic, have you not just “got this wrong”? Or, do you now agree that types of data not explicitly mentioned in the infobox template can be included? In which case, do you have any other reason to object to the use of ‘1839 – Chester Diocesan Training College’?
This whole thing has conflated past all recognition. At the end of the day, the basis of your argument is that your definition of established is correct. I have disputed your definition and made reference to other university pages and to Acts of Parliament. You have not presented any evidence, other than your repeated inane assertion that “things change” (i.e. the evidence presented does not suit you, so you assume that, somehow, one day it will) and you have repeatedly contradicted yourself. Yes, things can change, but in this instance, if you look at the available evidence, they haven’t, or at least they haven’t changed in the way you would like to believe.
If nothing else, then surely the extent and expansive nature of this argument indicates that we are dealing with a very complicated subject, and therefore, that a little bit of exposition is required in the ‘Established’ section of the infobox, not merely the isolated number ‘1839’.
Having said all that, I wish you the best of luck if you attempt to have the infobox amended. It would be really great to salvage something positive from this mess! For the time being, I’ll stop reverting your reverts of my reverts of your reverts of my edit, even though it does render the page inaccurate. --78.86.216.51 (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
As your reply is far more about me than the content of the article, I shall take no further part in this discussion. - Green Tentacle (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to point out that you began the mud-slinging when you tried to paint me out to be a megalomaniac by taking a small piece of my argument totally out of context in your 17:47, 16 July 2012 post. My last post was a point-by-point rebuttal of your argument; so, I chose to echo the tone used in your previous post. I have re-read my last post and found that I did use several provocative words, such as ‘demagogic‘ and ‘solipsism’, but they were no more incendiary than your assertion that I refused to use correct protocol, no more mocking than you facetious remark that “It does not forbid putting a picture of a rabbit there either”, and no more aggressive than your unilateral decision to change the infobox and then assert that I would be the unreasonably party if I did not accept it. I do not consider pointing out the contradictions inherent in your argument to be an attack on you, but rather, part of a counterargument to your 1839 advocation. I understand that you have a right to feel offended by what I have said; I just don’t believe my comments are anymore offensive than yours, especially as they were written in response to your comments.
By giving you free reign over the page (despite 1839 being totally wrong), and allowing you time to try and change the template, I have attempted to be diplomatic and gracious. You have responded by ignoring me. In each of my replies I have given a comprehensive evidence-based critique of your argument, whereas you have repeatedly misrepresented me and skirted over the central issue, preferring to pursue a tactic of overgeneralisation and demagoguery, rather than attempting to tackle anything substantive. You have no right to try and claim the moral high ground by ignoring me.
If you have no wish to find a real solution, then I will simply change the page back to my edit, as this is in line with other university pages, and the legal understanding of a UK university. More than 3000 people viewed this page in the last 30 days; to leave it in its current form is irresponsible.
Though I have already pointed out three ways in which you contradict your own argument, I have found a further three pertinent examples, which I hope will further underline the incoherence of your argument, and therefore further reinforce my position on the matter at hand.
1. In a discussion regarding which name should take precedence on the Durham University page (the official ‘Uni. Of’ name, or the new brand name), you listed a series of other UK universities which used their brand names on Wikipedia, and argued “for the sake of conistancy [sic], this article should move to 'Durham University'.” Yet, when I have appealed to consistency, you have rejected it out of hand or claimed that other university pages should follow “Chester's lead”. As a side note, I went to Durham, and agree 100% with you on this – in fact, my CV lists Durham University, not the Uni. of! I really have no personal problem with you; I just have a problem with the argument you have advanced.
2. In a discussion about the (now amended) bizarre referencing style that was once used in the Chester article, you defended your system of referencing on the grounds that you “personally prefer the footnote before the punctuation style because the footnote invariably is linked to that sentence” and also because “it's what I used to and I think it looks pretty!” Yet, when I admitted that “I prefer the second definition of established”, you responded by saying “since when was Wikipedia all about your personal preferences?” My admission was, of course, taken out of context by you, but even if it hadn’t been then, based on your own precedence, you had no reason to complain.
3. Finally, whereas in this debate you have advocated a literalist reading of the Wikipedia guidelines, in a previous debate with DDstretch regarding your repeated reverts of his edits, you advocated the exact opposite, forcing him to wonder aloud whether you were too easily invoking WP:IAR. Earlier in this thread, in your 16:20, 15 July 2012 post, you said “the infobox guidelines…says to use the start date template”. From this you went on to extrapolate that text was therefore prohibited from the Established box, as the guidelines did not explicitly mention the use of text. When I pointed out that the infobox template did not expressly forbid the use of text, and indeed, did not even mention it, you replied (in your 17:47, 16 July 2012 post) that “it does not forbid putting a picture of a rabbit there either.” Yet, when DDstretch pointed out that you were directly contravening the External Links guideline and directed you to WP:EL, you responded with the following: “Pretty typical Wikipedia: a stupid guideline is considered more important than the reader. A reader is clearly going to expect an External Links section to contain a link to the institution in question.”
Please do not drag this out any further. --78.86.216.51 (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Notable alumni Section[edit]

This has lots of red link names, some or all of which may in in breach of WP:NLIST, consideration should be given to removing them Codf1977 (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have removed any red link without an independent reliable source attesting to the notibility of the person, obviously any student or uni publication is not independent. Codf1977 (talk) 10:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


The Telegraph article says Nicola Wilson went to the University of Manchester, not Chester. She has an *honorary* degree from the University of Chester. Her entry should be removed and transferred to the University of Manchester's page 149.170.169.4 (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)katdibbits

Reputation Section[edit]

Chestercheshire (talk · contribs) (new name for Universityofchester (talk · contribs) see here) removed the following from the reputation section :

Due to the COI I have reinstated it pending a consensus here. Codf1977 (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that it should remain in, the majority of the "fire" from the local community was focused at the council, but it deserves to be mentioned especially as county hall/riverside as it will be known will open this september Lodi01 (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"Public research university"[edit]

I have removed the word ‘research’ from the introductory sentence (“The University of Chester is a public research university located in Chester, United Kingdom”). I have done this because, though most (if not all?) UK universities conduct research, the term ‘research university’ is used specifically to describe the most research-intensive institutions. Based on the available data (presented below), there is nothing to suggest that Chester is research-intensive, and indeed, the Complete University Guide ranks Chester 102 out of 116 universities in terms of the quality of its research output. The Guide calculated research quality by taking RAE 2008 data and weighting it to limit bias resulting from low submission rates.

In the year 2010-11, Chester received just £351,000 in research grants and contracts, and awarded only 15 Ph.Ds. Per member of academic staff cost, Chester awarded only 0.22 Ph.Ds.

By way of comparison, please find below the same data for a selection of other universities which are described on their Wikipedia pages as “public research university”:


University Research Grants and Contracts (£) Ph.Ds Awarded Ph.Ds/Member of Academic Staff Cost
Queen Mary 72,297,000 265 1.00
Manchester 195,467,000 965 1.73
Durham 48,740,000 310 1.50
LSE 25,596,000 190 1.04
Exeter 46,171,000 230 1.53
I tend to agree. Although I would happily describe a large number of UK universities, probably most, as being "research universities", in this case I think that a research income of £351,000 is just too low. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I too consider a lot of universities to be “research universities”. However, as there is no official definition of the term, I felt that including universities whose reputations, for some reason, do not match their quality – Aberdeen (215 Ph.Ds; £63,498,000 in grants) and Aberystwyth (70 Ph.Ds; £19,824,000 in grants), for instance – may be provocative. As such, I selected a grouping of comparator institutions whose status as research universities was, probably, beyond dispute. --78.86.216.51 (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Chester's submission to RAE 2008[edit]

In the latest RAE, institutions could determine their own submission. Chester chose to submit 63.8 FTE staff. The total number of academic staff employed by Chester that year was just over 475 (unfortunately, I can only trace academic staff data back to 08/09, where the data indicates there was a 1.1% drop from 07/08). Of those 475, 375 were on full-time contracts, and 100 were on part-time contracts. Assuming that part-time staff worked on average 50% of full-time equivalency, the FTE figure for Chester in 08/09 was 425.

63.8 as a percentage of 425 is 15.01%, meaning the number of academic staff submitted is 15.01% of the total employed by Chester.

International quality (i.e. grades 2,3, and 4*) research represented 62% of total submitted research, and 62% of 15.01 is 9.3062%. Therefore, roughly 9.3% of Chester’s research has been of international standard. I do not believe that this constitutes a significant proportion and have consequently removed the phrase “a significant proportion”, and replaced it with the word “some”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.216.51 (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Chester's relatively high UCAS tariff[edit]

Because of the nature and frequency of my recent edits to this article, it may appear that I am biased against Chester (when in fact I am only attempting to be biased against bias). To remedy this, I have looked for some information which is not already on this page, and which shows Chester in a positive light. I believe that its average entry tariff – 282 – is quite impressive for such a new university, especially when considered against Salford’s tariff of 283. Salford, of course, has been a university for 46 years – 39 years longer than Chester.

Taking my lead from The University of York page, I have included this information in the form of A-Levels. I have assumed that the average entrant has completed 4 AS-levels and 3 A-Levels, which translates to CCCc at A-Level. I do realise that the average A-Level standard is most likely below CCCc, as Chester accepts supplementary qualifications -- such as Key Skills -- which serve to inflate the number of UCAS points, but as there is no data to determine the proportion of supplementary qualifications the average Chester student possesses, I have given preference to the best-case scenario, namely one where zero supplements are offered. --78.86.216.51 (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)