Talk:University of Birmingham/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old Joe

100 meters high? Really? Someone check this. Big Ben is not 100 meters high and Old Joe seems less tall. Maybe I'm wrong.

Old Joe is taller than "Big Ben", though I'm not sure if it is as high as 100 metres. NJW494 12:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Old Joe is 100 metres. Big Ben (St Stephens tower) is 96.4 metres tall. There is a mere difference of 3.6 metres but Old Joe is taller than Big Ben. - Erebus555 12:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I heard the 100m claim at an internal UoB presentation, and being naturally sceptical attempted to verify it it, hence the link to the skyscraper site when I added it. There was a claim about it being one of the top 30 tallest buildings, but I didn't add this since it's only true if you count buildings of equal height as one rank (e.g. 1st, 3 buildings joint 2nd, four joint third etc). - DI Ramekin 07:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the 2007/08 Study Guide the clocktower is 110metres. I believe the claim of 100m is most probably a 'rounding-up', and I see no reason why the official university guide would claim the more precise figure of 110m arbitrarily. Previous references were not directed to official sources, and I imagine they also got their '100m' figures from a general opinion, rather than factual information. --81.155.85.77 (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I've referenced both the 100 and 110m figures at Joseph Chamberlain Memorial Clock Tower and done the same here. I wonder whether the university source has a typo though, because it states "The tower is 110 metres high – just higher than Big Ben in London", when the latter is 96.3m. 110m is quite a lot more than "just higher", whereas 100m would make more sense. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing is I added the 'slightly taller than Big Ben' to wiki thing a long time ago (when I too thought it was exactly 100m). I'd find it amusing if the people who wrote the guide plagiarised wikipedia! Famous clocktower though, I supppose.. --81.155.85.77 (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I really think we should take the two university sources and not mention these other random sources which claim it is exactly 100m. This figure must surely be an approximation, people casually stating "it's 100m tall" by word of mouth and that figure spreading like a fact. Seems unlikely to me it would be exactly 100m - where would the university get the more precise figure of 110m from if it were not (probably) accurate? --Tomsega (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Honorary degrees

Honorary degrees have no place in this or any university article - certainly not honorary degrees awarded to such minor figures. Universities regularly award a large number of honorary degrees to a large number of distinguished figures - but the only connection through this degree is that they have attended the university for a few hours to collect it - it does not merit mention in this article. Some googling digs up the lists of honorary graduands of Birmingham for 1999 - 16 of them here - http://www.bham.ac.uk/general/news/nr18-18.htm and a further five here - http://www.bham.ac.uk/general/news/nr20-03.htm - all of them sound about as distinguished as those that you have listed.--Iceaxejuggler 04:15, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Copyvio

I have removed this whole section:

== At The University of Birmingham... ==
 
* Heart pacemakers were developed
* Vitamin C was first synthesised
* The microwave was harnessed - for radar and oven
* Allergy vaccines were pioneered
* Edward Elgar was Professor of Music
* The mass of the Earth was determined

Which is

1. A copyright violation from http://www.research.bham.ac.uk/facts.htm (the last point has been copyedited since it was added to Wikipedia)
2. A bit too much like marketing puff to go in an encyclopedia article as it is.

Certainly these are things that should be mentioned in the article. Ideally they should have full sentences with names, dates etc. about them. They can't stay in this form, though.

--rbrwrˆ 09:19, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Boldly lowercasing

I have boldly lowercased all instances of "university" except in the proper noun "University of Birmingham". I realise that this may be a slightly contentious act, as some (especially British) style guides recommend capitalising "University" when it refers to a specific university, especially in an official or institutional context, but the capitalisation in this article was a dog's breakfast and was badly in need of some consistency. --rbrwr^± 15:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Having thought this through, I've put capital U's back on the word University where it refers specifically to this University. In these cases, it is used as an abbreviation of "University of Birmingham" and so is a proper noun. I notice also that the word "College" had been left with a capital C. --JiM 18:44, 26 Jan 2005 (GMT)

Okay. Fair enough. --rbrwr^± 19:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rebranding controversy

I have removed the paragraph about rebranding and the link the BBC article for the following reasons:

• Discussion about recent marketing/rebranding has no place in an general article about a diverse and historic institution like Birmingham University – it’s too obscure.
• This is a ‘political’ issue within the university and should be kept out of a unbiased encyclopaedic entry.
• The statements in the paragraph were in themselves controversial and subjective. It suggests that student opposition was based on misunderstanding, rather than an informed dislike of the new brand. (unsigned comment by User:Reejoc)
• The student opposition WAS based on misunderstanding. Little consultation was carried out prior to the changes. Now the changes are in place and have been fully explained / justified student acceptance is much higher, this demonstrates that it was not informed dislike but rather a severe lack of information.

• • Your assertions are merely opinion. I have reverted yoru deletions. Andy Mabbett 09:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • The irony being that I removed the section because it contained poorly disguised opinion. I have compromised by leaving in the factual part of the paragraph and removing the second part, which was not only inappropriate but also incorrect.

Alumni

Do we need the section on Alumni, when there's a category for that purpose? Andy Mabbett 19:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Its should probably be thinned out, the alumni category should be done properly too, i.e. all the alumni on wikipedia should be on it. Greg321 18:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be difficult to insert certain individuals into a category for alumni considering certain individuals who are notable don't yet have their own Wikipedia articles. Take, for example, Blancmange lead singer Neil Arthur. While he is certainly someone you could consider a notable graduate of the University of Birmingham, he does not have his own Wiki article, so it would be difficult to slot him in as a notable alum if you were focusing in on categories alone instead of a combination of categories and lists. Just my own perspective on the matter. (Krushsister 04:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC))

I'm creating a new page that lists notable alumni, so that they can be listed regardless of whether they have a page or not. This is consistent with List of University of Oxford people, List of Queen's University Belfast people, etc. Cordless Larry 13:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Earliest redbrick university...

"It was founded in 1900 as a successor to Mason Science College, and is thus the earliest of the "Redbrick" universities".

I don't think is the case. The (federal) Victoria University (UK) was given its charter in 1880, and indeed the term redbrick originated at Liverpool University, originally part of the Victoria University.

Also, see Red Brick.

The University, has today (11/5/2006), on its homepage "Stimulating inteluctual curiosity since 1825". However, investigation suggests this is the foundation date of what would much later become the university medical school.

The prospectus says it was the "first civic university", and yet the Manchester page says that THAT university was given a Royal Charter in 1880!

I'm inclined to believe Manchester are lying a bit by sticking 1824 everywhere, although it DID probably recieve a royal charter first. Still - that's a bit like Birmingham sticking 1825 everywhere, just because it sprang from a college of that period.

There's a muddle above, arising from somebody's incorrect compression into the quoted phrase. The claim is to be the first **independent** university (in England after Oxford, Cambridge and London). Liverpool's website states that it became an **independent** university (with its own Royal Charter) in 1903. The earlier foundation of the 3-part Victoria University has always been acknowledged. When did Manchester (or Leeds) get its own Charter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.149.138 (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

External links: student groups

I have removed a number of student group and sports club links, as below:

• Purple Mermaid - The University of Birmingham Circus Society
• Birmingham Rock Music Society
• University of Birmingham American Football Team
• University of Birmingham Cycling Team
• University of Birmingham Ice Hockey Team

Where should the line be drawn? There are over 160 societies at the Guild of Students, as well as numerous sports clubs and unofficial groups at Birmingham Uni.

I've left the media links:

• The Radish - Alternative paper and unofficial messageboard of Birmingham University
• Redbrick - student newspaper
• Burn FM - student radio station

Opinions? -- SimonMenashy 02:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Could there not be something similar to the alumni section for socities/sports teams perhaps? Colonel 15:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

-- Why should the Radish be included?

AU Awards

For the very same reason we should not detail honourary graduates every year there is even less reason to detail AU awards.

The sport section also fails to distinguish between the student run Athletic Union and the University controlled University Sport Birmingham department.

I graduated from this University in 2003. Can someone explain why it is continually slipping down the University rankings?

It must be because you're not there anymore. Badgerpatrol 13:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I got my MSc in Foundation Engineering in 2004. Well, let me tell you, I got a private scholarship from a well know institution in Colombia and one of the requirement was to probe that the University that the scholar has choose is good enough. If you check specific rankings and alumni comments (RAE 2001, Times, Guardian) you can find that the University offers a quite well student environment, a beautiful campus, and most important that all, a well and recognize staff. In matter of fact, companies and the industrial sector has a quite strong preference for the Birmingham graduate. The experience that I got during my time in the Bham has been extremely useful in my work. That is true that universities as Harvard, Yale, Berkley, Oxford, Cambridge and others are in the head of the rankings. However, there are many good universities that can offer you a value experience and a wonderful time, one of them is the University of Birmingham.

I would like to see our University in the head of the rankings, but, that is a long time achievement that the University, staff, student and alumni must work together.

National Nanotechnology Centre.

I hear the National Nanotechnology Centre is going to be located on the campus [1] [2]. Someone add this to the article as I feel I could cause some serious damage to this if I did it. Dont forget to add the references. - Erebus555 14:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Applications per place

The university is currently the 4th most popular university in the UK—in terms of number of applications per place...

Does this mean anything? It's a raw statistic devoid of context. Leaving aside whether this is referring to all places, just UGs, just PGs, full time course only, something else or any combination, there are several key factors. In particular:

• Applicants tend to ignore universities they (or those advising them) think they have zero chance of getting into, even if they really want to go there.

• Some institutions may have additional entry requirements that can block a person from even applying in the first place - for instance University College London has announced that from 2012 it will require applicants to have a modern language GCSE to even be considered for any place.

• Under the UCAS scheme for undergraduate applications you can apply to up to six different courses, often at separate institutions though sometimes at the same. So there is strong potential for double and even triple counting of people who want to get into a particular university rather than onto a particular degree. Some especially competitive courses like medicine have a limit of four choices and it's very common for would be medics to use their remaining two + options for courses like biomedical science (does Birmingham offer this?) as a back-up route to medicine with the intention to go onto a graduate entry programe, often at the same institution.

• Currently the UCAS form offers no way for an applicant to distinguish between the institution they really want to go to, a "near miss" second choice and a "if everything goes wrong" ultimate fallback. (Later they have to select only one firm and one insurance place from those that make offers, but usually the passage of time allows for later refinement.) In particular it's common for Oxbridge applicants to look to other Russell Group institutions, especially those in roughly the same part of the country (Warwick also gets a very high application rate). So just how to you distinguish between actual desire and a resigned "it'll do"?

• Oxford and Cambridge don't allow applicants to apply to the other in the same year, thereby reducing their total numbers.

• For research postgraduates applications a lot are first made informally, sounding out availability of supervisors and the like.

Timrollpickering 04:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You could write a convincing essay on how irrelevant statistics are, but the only thing that matters is the factuality of the statement! I have added a superior reference to the article. NOTE: The reference available says 'England', not 'UK', and I have edited the article accordingly. --Tomsega (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

University ratings

(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 22:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Principal officers of the University

The Vice-Chancellor and Principal is Professor Michael Sterling although this leadership has proved sometimes controversial. Just wondering if this last bit is getting a bit POV? Doesn't really seem to be the right place for the comment anyway. Controversial or not, he IS the Vice Chancellor. I was going to remove it but thought I would ask peoples opinion.

Bobfos 01:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

School colors

• the style is strange, I am familiar with the:

{{color box|#nnnnnn}}

If anyone can use the colorbox template instead for the university colors that would be great, I would do it myself but I cant figure out which colors are the schools hah (:OP ... dont forget to show the name of the color to (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 15:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Example: Massachusetts Institute of Technology ... you can use this as an example (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 15:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The colours table represents the college scarf. — mholland (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Pension Scheme Section

I do not believe that this section has a place in an article in wikipedia. Is there any verifibility? If anybody wishes this section to remain, it must be sourced. I want to avoid edit-warring, and hope anybody making revisions to this section will discuss them here first. Remember, Wikipedia isn't somewhere to vent your anger. Cheers Toon 00:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This section has now been re-added in a way that breaks the layout of the page, but I can't revert it now because of the three reverts rule. Cordless Larry 21:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Carnegie

The Architecture of the university section of this page says that Andrew Carnegie donated £50,000 to the university. The Joseph Chamberlain Memorial Clock Tower states that Sir Charles Holcroft did, anonymously. Is this just a coincidence, in that they both donated £50,000 at around the same time, or is one a mistake? Cordless Larry 18:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, found a reference for Carnegie, which usefully also mentions the link to Cornell University's setup: http://ecommons.library.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/3164/11/002_10.pdf (p. 6). Cordless Larry 18:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Page Design/Photographs

Uploaded three high definition photos - of Old Joe, the sports pitch, the vale, and the great hall. One other Old Joe photo was removed, purely because it isn't so high quality.

Also, I dispersed the photos more evenly around the page - so the pictures aren't all at the bottom. Tomsega 09:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Your images are still on there, only one of them was repositioned, and the others only had their captions changed. Someguy1221 08:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Largest endowment?

After checking the other redbricks I had it listed at one stage that Birmingham has the largest endowment of the group. This is not the case, however - I missed Liverpool. Liverpool has an endowment of £93m! Surprising, when Bristol's is only £30 odd.

--81.129.59.0 09:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only person who came to this thread expecting/hoping to find it was about something naughty? Ho-hum, perhaps so. Badgerpatrol 10:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Endowments aren't really a big part of university financing in the UK like they are in the US, so they're all pretty small. The difference between £30m and £93m is tiny when compared to what US universities have. Cordless Larry 21:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Although, Oxford and Cabridge have American-sized endowments - in the billions, that is. Tomsega 00:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Improving the article

The article is quite large although it still needs improving. First of all, there needs to be more references. All statements with {{fact}} after them need references as well as other statements which have not been tagged. Secondly, I think there definitely could be a better section heading than "About the university" as technically, the whole article is about the university anyway. It may be possible to merge that section with the rest of the article. The history section is a little POV so some rewording might be needed here.

The organisation section needs a lot of work. There are too many lists in the sub-sections. Could these be changed into tables or put together to form paragraphs? I think the list under the chancellors heading could definitely be changed into a table. The list under "Principal officers of the University" can be merged to form a paragraph. The list under "Housing" could be split into paragraphs with more information on each of these 'villages'; such as years of construction and number of student units etc.. Off-campus establishments can be merged to form paragraphs as well as expanding what each of the establishments does.

The Architecture of the University section can be expanded. I have some good sources for that so I am hoping to get on with that some time soon. Some numerical figures for measurements and weights could do with being converted using the convert template.

Finally, the "Other items of interest" is effectively Trivia under a different heading. These can all be merged into other sections of the article. The "Appearances in film and television" section can remain, however. Any other improvements to the article would be general fixes. Any other suggestions? - Erebus555 18:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much everything you suggest. The 'other items of interest' section has been annoying me and needs to be merged into the text of the article. On the weights point, see my comment here - I think that as well as conversion, we could do with a proper source as there seem to be some inconsistencies. I started some of the list sections, which have now got out of hand, so I agree that some of these could become paragraph text. Cordless Larry 21:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I've sorted out the POV in the history section - it was a lot less extensive that I initially thought. I have referenced everything with fact tags or removed the statement. I have changed the heading of "About the university" to "Overview". As suggested, I turned the listed of chancellors into a wikitable, though more work could be done to the organisation section as a whole. I have expanded Housing with lots of references. These have been split into their own sections. This will still need expansion. I have expanded the architecture of the university section substantially with references. Finally, I have merged the "Other items of interest" into the rest of the article. Some more work is needed though. - Erebus555 16:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work. Do you think we can move some material out of the organistation section, because that heading is dominating the whole article at the moment. Cordless Larry 18:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think so. It might be wise to have a "Facilities" section. Also, maybe Housing could go as it's own section with no parent heading. Under the facilities section could be 'Libraries and collections', 'NHS hospitals', and possibly (with a little bit of a rewrite as to include the sporting facilities) 'University Sport Birmingham'. - Erebus555 18:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Some other university articles have a 'student life' section which includes housing, the student union, etc. I'm going to create a section like this here, but feel free to change it if you want. Cordless Larry 12:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I also wonder whether we should merge the 'overview' and 'architecture' sections into one simply called 'campus'? Cordless Larry 13:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Those both seem to be better options actually! That's fine! - Erebus555 13:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Campanile

The reference to: "founded on both campuses having a replica of the Leaning Tower of Pisa" is surely wrong. If anything, these are references to the campanile in St Mark's Square, Venice. Quartic (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the novel, but I've added a reference to a book on campus novels that supports the Pisa claim. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

University crest

The university crest in the infobox on this page has been removed by User:Infinity18ad, who initially replaced it with a (very much) lower resolution version. When I reinstated the original version (Image:Bham crest new.png), they posted on my talk page explaining that the university is concerned at the use of the image, but that a low-res version would be acceptable. The version they uploaded has now been deleted, but Image:Bham crest new.png is listed as a lower-res version of an original image anyway. What do people think? Are we OK to revert to the image we were using? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember that a similar thing happened to another Univeristy coat of arms or crest, which a representative of the University removed on the grounds that the University didn't want it to be thought that they were endorsing Wikipedia. I think the argument which saw that one replaced was that by US-copyright laws (under which Wikipedia is governed) a business logo can be reproduced to illustrate an article under fair-use regulations (see wp:logo for the actual Wikipedia guidelines on this issue). The copyright logo tag which can be added for images does state that the image on Wikipedia is (or should be) low-resolution. Personally I see nothing wrong with adding a smaller logo, too small to be printed out in detail on a forged degree certificate, but I would prefer the logo to be large enough to see (perhaps two-inches tall on a screen). The low-resolution image that the University representative posted here was so small as to be useless. It was impossible to see the images in the logo itself. On the other hand, however, the logo image that existed previously was larger than it strictly needed to be. I will leave others with more experience of Wikipedia to make a decision about what should actually be done, but I hope this is a useful contribution to the debate. ThomasL (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that we're pretty much back to square one with this and the crest is back up online. Would it be deemed appropriate for this version of the crest to be available on Wikipedia with a watermark on it? We are just concerned that such an image in it's current form would allow individuals to create sumple forgeries of degree certificates/visa letters etc. Please let me know your views on this. --Infinity18ad (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest uploading a clean, PNG version of Image:BirminghamUniversityCrest.gif at 180-200px wide. Per the Non-free Content Policy, this image need only be large enough to be recognisable (in this case, large enough to read the text "per ardua ad alta", and to clearly discern the mermaid and whatever that is with the two heads opposite the mermaid).

Watermarking is not an option: use of logos on Wikipedia should be accurate, as well as respectful of copyrights. In any case, the university itself is distributing this image at higher resolutions. — mholland (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Image Sizes/formation

The left/right/left image formation does not wrap the paragraphs correctly unless the thumbs are slightly enlarged here or there. I do not believe doing this conflicts with the Wiki guide for visual style. As you'll notice, thumbnails vary in size anyway depending on their original dimensions. As 1280x1024 is the most commonly used resolution the page should be optimised for it.--81.155.85.77 (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Department of Mathematical Physics?

Should more be made in the article of the former Department of Mathematical Physics, which had a really stellar reputation, particularly from the 1940s to 1960s? Jheald (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Railway station

The phrase that the University is the only one in Britain to have its own railway station seems a little ambiguous. It may very well be the only one named after the University but it is not owned by the Uni, nor for exclusive use of people visiting the Uni. 87.86.146.228 (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The station is called 'university station', is (I think rightly) described by Push Guide as "on-campus" (wedged between UoB buildings at least), and was clearly purpose-built for a university that has been on the site for over a hundred years. Just because the actual 200ft of train track is owned by British Rail etc rather than the university doesn't really mean anything!--Tomsega (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Birmingham, Warwickshire, England

Have the Americans been editing wikipedia? Which nutcase wrote this? UoB is in Birmingham, UK. If it really *must* have a county, it would be West Midlands, not Warwickshire. Editing. jdan (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Latin motto

Does anyone have a copy of The First Civic University to verify the reference for this translation of the university's motto? It's a pretty poor translation - "high things" sounds like objects on the top shelf. "The Heights" is more usual, and the present text replaces a looser translation I took from the university website. — mholland (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I just checked it out of the library. It states that "For the future there was a new motto, Per Ardua ad Alta - 'Striving for Excellence'" (p. 103). There is then a footnote (no. 92), which states "Literally, 'through effort to high things'". Cordless Larry (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Rankings table and format of the page

The rankings table is currently so wide that it's stretching the page out horizontally. This isn't really appropriate. Perhaps we could delete every other year of the Guardian rankings before the year 2000, or somebody with a better knowledge of how these tables work could sort it out another way??--Tomsega (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

All the Times rankings prior to 2005 are unreferenced. Deleting them would condense the table, unless anyone has a source? — mholland (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be a shame to lose them since they tell an interesting story about the university dropping down the rankings (and now maybe climbing back up again), but since they're not referenced they should probably go. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to delete them all, but to make the page fit properly we're going to have to lose two columns - so I think I will proceed to remove the columns for 1996 and 1997. --Tomsega (talk) 09:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Why did you choose 1996 and 1997 rather than the earlier years? It seems a bit arbitrary to have those ones missing in an otherwise continuous series. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it made sense to keep the highest-achieved rank (1994), as well as the oldest rank (1993) and I wanted to select two years from before 1998. How would you have done it? How about 1994; 1996; 1998; 1999; 2000 etc? --Tomsega (talk) 11:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleting every other year seems a little more consistent, although the problem is only going to reappear when next year's rankings are published. A better solution might be to change the format of the table so that it reads down the page rather than across it. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but I've no idea how you do that! --Tomsega (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Give me a few days and I'll see if I can do it. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's done. I'd like to combine the two tables into one but I need to work out how to divide the table into two column sections. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That's now done too. Let me know what you think. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks fantastic, good stuff (sorry for the late reply, I only just came back to the page in the last few days to update the 2011 rankings!) --Tomsega (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

1960s and modern expansion & Housing sections

Why is Mason Hall not mentioned under "1960s and modern expansion"? Also, the statement under Housing that "The university maintained gender-segregated halls until 1999" is not true - the original Mason Hall was a fully gender-integrated hall from as far back as at least 1989 until it was demolished to make way for the new version. Cornthwaite (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think merely because the article treats 'The Campus' and 'The Vale' (as accommodation) as loosely distinct entities. The statement on gender-segregated halls is unreferenced. If you believe you know that it's wrong, by all means change it!--Tomsega (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Universities sneakily and arbitrily pin-pointing historic dates to sound older than they are!

Let's stop it happening on this page, and sniff it out on other college pages. Hilarious how many universities try to suggest they date back to 18 such-and-such just because somebody nearby sneezed 250 years ago... --Tomsega (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That's simply done for UK univs from the 1980s back: require the date of the Royal Charter of that individual university. Fair enough to list the founding of earlier institutions also that were brought under the Charter (e.g., medicine 1823, science 1875) so long as that is clear. -- alum rock 12Aug'11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.149.138 (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)