Talk:University of Cambridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article University of Cambridge was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject England (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.
 
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.
 
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 University of Cambridge (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the University of Cambridge Wikiproject, an attempt to improve articles relating to the University of Cambridge, and to standardize and extend the coverage of the University in the encyclopedia. If you would like to participate, you can help us by editing the article attached to this notice, or you could visit the project page, where you can join the project, learn more about it, see what needs to be done, or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject East Anglia (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia 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.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon University of Cambridge is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see University of Cambridge at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
 

History[edit]

must include the actual beginning of classes being offered at the school, not just the Oxford-beating date when a charter gave greater liberties to the already-gathered scholars. Doubtless in a rivalry like this, the information will come and go from the article. Kindly maintain it, pending improvements with still-better sourcing. — LlywelynII 03:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

M Harunur Rashid[edit]

I am trying to de-orphan the Bangladeshi archaeologist, etc. M Harunur Rashid (archaeologist). The article says he received his PhD from the University of Cambridge in 1968 with this source cited in support. Does this person satisfy the selection criteria being used for the University of Cambridge#Notable alumni and academics or the related article List of University of Cambridge people? Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Rosalind Franklin[edit]

The image of Rosalind Franklin appears to be non-free media, are we allowed to use it on this article? Cantab12 (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I would say no since there no per WP:NFCC#10c and WP:NFCC#8. A seperate, specific non-free use rationale is required each time a non-free image is used in an article and this usage rationale has to show that all 10 non-free content criteria are satisfied. While might be argued that the picture of Franklin is essential to Rosalind Franklin and, therefore, NFCC#8 and No. 10 of WP:NFCI are satisfied, it would be pretty hard to do the same for this particular article since having the picture may be nice, but it is not really essential. FWIW, it's also possible that this usage would fail No. 4 of WP:NFLISTS. This is just my opinion of course, but it's probably a good idea to discuss this usage at WP:NFCR just to make sure. - Marchjuly (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at WP:NFCR#File:Rosalind Franklin.jpg regarding the file's non free use in this article. All interested editors are welcome to add comments. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the image based upon comments made above and at the concerned NFCR discussion. The presence of the image is not essential to the reader's understanding of the article and it is simply being used as if it were part of a gallery or list of some kind. Franklin's Wikipedia article is wikilinked in the text and the image is used there, so interested readers can see what Franklin looked like by looking at her article. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Age structure[edit]

Charles01 I thought your question in the edit summary for this edit [1] was an intriguing one, so I searched for articles that would provide further information. I found:

I know there is no one "correct" age distribution structure, but when there are no natural phenomena such as an epidemic, a drought or a volcanic eruption, I think there may be a "normal" distribution of population within a country by age. When circumstances cause the percentage of young adults to increase dramatically, such as in a youth bulge, that age group will be disproportionately large compared to the other age groups on the distribution pyramid. I think that is what was meant by "distorting the age structure". Corinne (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I must admit I wrote that bit just before being summoned to table, and without thinking too much about why I wrote what I wrote. But .... I think what was in my mind was that the word "distort" implies that there is somehow an "age structure" that is "normal", "proper", "correct" or even (tho this is too far) "preferable". I think you've picked up on what was in my mind, here. It seems to me that the Cambridge age structure is pretty much what you would expect for a moderately sized university city. And whether you think it a good or bad thing or neither, there are plenty of moderately sized university cities in England, partly because putting lots of kids through university massages the unemployment stats in a southerly direction and partly because the English persist in sending their children away so that it is considered somehow odd or improper for university age children while studying to live with Mom 'n Pop in a city whose age profile comes closer to the average for the state as a whole. Well, I guess there are pros and cons there, and in any case it's a digression. But I still think that while a large number of students may affect the age pyramid, it doesn't really distort it from some perfect world most likely alternative. Though I freely admit I regard this as a pretty long way down on the list of "what matters". It is not something over which I would be tempted to launch World War 3, nor even a wiki-p**sing contest! If, following your researches, you (or someone else reading this) are (/is) persuaded that "distort" carries a more appropriate baggage set than "affect", you should not hesitate, on my account, to put it back. Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on University of Cambridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)