Talk:University of Nottingham/Archive 1

Archive 1

Userbox

I have created a userbox for any other notts students and/or graduates. Heres what it looks like:

This user studies or studied at the University of Nottingham

To add it to your user page use {{subst:User:Modest Genius/Template:User Notts Uni}}.

Given the current controversies over userboxes I've left it within my namespace for now, this may or may not get moved at some point. Enjoy. Modest Genius 20:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have created other userboxes with the new logo:

{{User:Quastar/Userboxes/User Notts}}	NottThis user studies or studied at the University of Nottingham
{{User:Quastar/Userboxes/User UNMC}}	UNMCThis user studies or studied at the University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus
{{User:Quastar/Userboxes/User UNNC}}	UNNCThis user studies or studied at the University of Nottingham, Ningbo, China

This new userboxes will also correctly list your user page according to the alphabetical order in the Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Nottingham page.

- quastar 17:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Grr. Why was this moved to Nottingham University? Its name is the University of Nottingham - Khendon 12:22 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

Wasn't there some controversy about them accepting funding from something dodgy? What was that about? Mark Richards 22:43, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Why that connection to Malaysia? Just a lucky meeting or is there a sinister plan among British unis to share the world a la Treaty of Tordesillas?

Funding into something dodgy? I think that would be the tobacco - £3.8 million from British American Tobacco in 2001, for an International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility. Average Earthman 18:20, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've added a bit about that in the facts. Anyone got any ideas what more I could write about the Uni? --80.1.241.104 20:23, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Campus Fourteen is the local pub crawl, isn't it?. You can write about other not-so-academical aspects.

AUT greylisting

The article doesn't actuallly explain why the uni fell out with the AUT. --Ebz 22:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Refused to negotiate with the union over pay. Average Earthman 18:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Figures

Does anyone know the endowment for the university? It seems like it recieves around £100 million in research grants but what about its own development fund? I know it's pretty substantial since alumni giving is over £1 million. Also, what is the true number of enrolled students? Thanks for any feedback. ArchonMeld 04:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Why don't you try the university's website? Or do you have a reason to believe that they'd be giving false figures? Average Earthman 10:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll add the link here as well - http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/finance/fin_stats.htm. Average Earthman 19:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I took out some information about changes to bar closures and the like as there is no source for this, does anyone have this information?zeroRPM

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 23:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Campus 14

I swear there used to be a Campus 14 article on here, what happened to it? It was quite a large article as I recall.Spanky Deluxe 01:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

There did indeed, it appears it was speedy deleted in December (see [1]). Perhaps worth speaking to the admin in question or running a DRV? If I remember correctly it WAS quite substantial, which would be a bit strange to be speedied Modest Genius ^talk 21:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes I tend to agree here. A substantial article has been replaced by a one-liner. Does seem a bit strange. Lan3y 23:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This may be due to university officials who did not like the bar crawl to be publicised - the page had routes between halls and rules of drinking and so may have been thought to encourage it. clearly a case of censorship. 128.243.220.22 22:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)claire128.243.220.22 22:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Dropped 'The' in name

I haven't found a source explicitly saying so, but every official source shows the name of the institution as The University of Nottingham, including the "The". This may seem like a minor point, but I have had personal experience of people getting somewhat annoyed about this in other contexts (esp journal publications). Was this intentional / due to some stupid guideline / a mistake? Modest Genius ^talk 21:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dropping the definite article is deliberate and it is per this policy. The test case, as it were, for the rule as it applies to Universities, is (The) Ohio State University - that article is currently with the mediation cabal and the arguments are probably all rehearsed at the case page. The guideline only applies to page names, though. I have bolded the "the" in the aritcle intro and (experimentally) added it to the infobox. What do you think? — mholland 22:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28definite_and_indefinite_articles_at_beginning_of_name%29 specifically allows the use of The in the case of 'official names', but disallows it in the case of universities. However, there is a caveat:

"On the other hand, some universities religiously refer to themselves as "... The University of X..." even in running text. If such usage is prevalent on university press releases and press kits, contact information, "about" pages, and internal department websites, and it is reasonably common in external sources (try a Google search), then it is more appropriate to name the Wikipedia article The University of X. For example"

which I think definitely applies in this case. Of course, that's only a guideline and WP:IAR suggests we can ignore it at will. Thanks for the quick response (And edit) Modest Genius ^talk 23:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The University of Nottingham should always be referred to as 'The University of Nottingham', including the 'The' with a capital T. It is explicitly stated in the University's brand guidelines. See: http://nottingham.ac.uk/corporate-id —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.65.156 (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Daughter articles

This article has quite a large number of forks (more than most other British Universities). Some of these are of borderline notability, but giving those the benefit of the doubt for the moment, would anyone oppose a consolidation of some of the branches of this article along the following lines?

King's Meadow Campus Jubilee Campus University Park Campus Sutton Bonington Campus University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus University of Nottingham, Ningbo, China	→	Campuses of the University of Nottingham
Nottingham University Gliding Club Munro Pineapple Society Nottingham University Mountaineering Club Nottingham University Society of Change Ringers The University of Nottingham Hillwalking and Rambling Society	→	Student societies of the University of Nottingham

There are other schemes which might be suggested for consolidation here. There is a current proposal to merge Impact (student magazine) into University of Nottingham Students' Union. I think Jabberwocky (writing magazine) should probably merge in there too. Any thoughts? — mholland (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support merging the various campus and magazine articles. The society articles are all valid A7s and I'd delete them myself if this wasn't my own university. Merging them all would be the beginnings of an unmanagable list. – Steel 18:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support merging the magazine articles as above, but am concerned that a super-article about all of the campuses could become a bit unwieldy. Also there might be a tendency to cut out information which would be left in were each campus to retain its own page. It could be an idea to construct it in a temporary page to see if it is indeed feasible though. Lan3y 22:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The existing text of all of the campus articles put together is less than 20kB. Unlike the student societies, the campuses are a stable, clearly-definable set: I don't think there is a chance of an article becoming 'unwieldy'. There shouldn't be a tendency to cut out information: you'd be within your rights to defend material that meets policy, whether on a single page or otherwise. The opposite may also be the case: keeping those campus articles separate attracts cruft.

I have prodded the societies articles, per Steel359's concerns - they are of varying standards, and not speedying them will give editors an opportunity to prove any notability which I may have missed. — mholland (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. – Steel 20:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Prods for Nottingham University Gliding Club and Nottingham University Society of Change Ringers have been contested. I have not moved for a deletion discussion of the Gliding Club article - an anon has argued in favour of its notability here. The Society of Change Ringers I have taken to AfD; the discussion may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nottingham University Society of Change Ringers. — mholland (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge of campus articles

I have proposed that the following articles be merged together into Campuses of the University of Nottingham.

• King's Meadow Campus
• Jubilee Campus
• University Park Campus
• Sutton Bonington Campus

The international campuses (Malaysia, Ningbo, China) have, I think, a greater claim to separate articles. Any opinions? — mholland (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any opposition, I have performed the above merge. — mholland (talk) 19:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

GA failed

this article needs further work to make GA status

• The whole article is badly lacking in sources
• The lead should be used to summarise content introduced in the main body
• The parts about the current chancellor, VC and the rankings of hte univeristy need to be dealt with in the main body, and at the moment the lead is mostly focused on the rankings and heads aspects
• The lead at the moment only has current events and very little history
• The dates need to use a consistent formatting style. At the moment it is quite irregular ibn terms of date linking
• History section has no sources. It is also recentist with about 70% of the history coming from the 20% most recent years and likely could be generally expanded
• The coat of arms should probably have its own section
• The campus section also has a lack of references in most places
• The pub appears to be distinctly non notable
• Single sentence paragraphs need to be expanded or merged.
• What is offered by the Overseas campuses. What is the status of hte outposts in those places?
• Other departments need to be expanded otherwise the MEd school has undue weight
• Admin strucutre needs sources
• We need more information about sponsorship and funding, commercial partnerships and the like.
• The student union for mine seems definitely undue weight. The other thing is that there are no possible sources for most of these things except for the union themselves, and student unions have a very poor honesty record
• The controversises section should be put in their own history and research policy sections, as they would avoid the standalone controversy sections and their POv complications
• There should be more information on undergraduate and postgraduate courses and facilities, a lot of detail is missing in this article. You should check WP:GA and look at other university GAs here

Best regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Do We Want a Good Nottingham Article?

I edited the whole article yesterday in an attempt to bring it up to "good article status;" but someone restored the old article, which is generally not of good scholarship and was criticized by the peer reviewers and other people. However, I understand the restorer's point. Omnis7 (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC).

I reverted the changes as I thought that in general they made the article a worse place. Sections should never be just see this page, they should at least include summaries. Campus 14 being removed is just plain WRONG - a quick google search turns up plenty of matches, and having watched people on campus14 go around campus every week for the past 4 years, it's a major part of student culture. It actually used to have its own article, and I'm pretty certain it still redirects here. I admit the article needs work, and I know that simply uploading photos doesn't generally help, but I feel that we need to make sure we don't just remove everything which doesn't conform simply because a GA reviewer says so. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For those who attended Nottingham, friends of Nottingham, or who care about good articles in general, let's suggest ways to improve this article. Nottingham's reputation should be equalled by the quality of the article here on Wikipedia.

My suggestions on improving the article are the following:

The article needs to be organised properly:

• Sources must be included to verify all information in the article.
• The introduction should not contain rankings or enrollment figures; these data can be placed in their own section in the article. A basic description of the type of university should be done, omitting subjective terms such as "leading university" or a "top university." We are not here to promote Nottingham.
• The history should contain sources verifying information.
• The organization section should be moved up the page for continued logical flow of the article and include references to the current chancellor.
• The campus section should either have no summaries or a small summary on the campuses, so not to detract from the articles created for describing the campuses in detail.
• A section called academics should be created to describe the divisions of the university, latest rankings, research.
• A section should be added to describe enrollment figures and student life; in this section, a small summary or no summary of students' union, as an article already exists describing it.
• The notable alumni section should be the last item discussed in the article.

Omnis7 (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much all of that, though IMO there should ALWAYS be summaries of main articles. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Mattbuck, I will not begin to edit the article until I read what people have to say; however, we should not wait indefinitely for people's suggestions. I will consider your suggestion and include brief summaries describing the main articles Omnis7 (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC).

Go ahead, and my apologies for reverting rashly earlier. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hich Yezza Case

I added a comment to the controversies section regarding the recent Hicham Yezza case. Unfortunately i know very little about this so feel free to add whatever you know. --Thebeca (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:University of Nottingham/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. I've reviewed the article as a candidate for a good article, and have placed the nomination on hold for a period of one week. After a review of this article, I have the following comments:

1. This article is well written, and meets the GA requirements for prose, style and wiki-links. I've made a few changes when appropriate.
2. This article may need more citations in order to be a GA. Examples of areas laking appropriate citations:

   • In the "Campuses" section, the Jubilee Campus is described as "award-winning." What award has it won? Was the award notable enough to call the campus "award-winning?" Remember to always write from a neutral point of view.
   • In the second paragraph of the "Research" section opens with "Nottingham is also commendable in the humanities and social sciences." Who is commending the university? Does this statement belong under research?
   • In the "Enrollment and student life" section, the student enrollment is described as "more than 6,000." In the infobox, the enrollment is 33,550. Which is correct? What is your source?
   • No citations appear anywhere in the sub-section of "Controversies" describing the academic boycott. References are needed or this section must be removed in order to be a good article.
   • I noticed some earlier debate about the inclusion of "Campus 14." Ask, will the inclusion of this information seem approprate in 20 years?

3. Some sections need expanding. For example:

   • Academic Faculties states there are "22 schools of study," yet only two are listed.
   • The "Student accommodation" sub-section of "Enrollment and student life" is only one sentence. Surely this can be expanded into a paragraph with one or two appropriate sources.

4. Overall, the article is stable and well-illustrated.

If the concerns are not addressed within the next week, this article's good article nomination may not pass. Thank you for working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of education. Farside6 (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Re Campus14 - we aren't writing an article for 20 years time, we're writing it for now. I personally have no doubt that as long as there are 13 bars on the campus, people will try and drink in all of them in a single night. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Review after hold

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

• Lead needs expanding. Pull key aspects from the body of the article. See Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE#Article_structure for what should be included in a lead section about a university. Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms suggests you remove the ranking information from the lead. This should be an easy fix.
• The lead section of "Enrollment and student life" needs to specify that over 6,000 is the international student population. Right now it reads "Nottingham has more than 6,000 undergraduate and postgraduate students..." which is true, it has 33,550!
• The second paragraph of "Research" is confusing. "Sir Peter Mansfield won his Nobel Prize, Professor Clive Granger, who was at Nottingham for 22 years as a student and academic, also won the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel." It sounds like Professor Clive Granger is the name of the Nobel Prize.
• The paragraph in "Campus" about Campus 14 should probably go in the "student life" section.

1. B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   The list of schools is very long, and doesn't add anything to the article. Consider a Wikipedia:Hatnote to the schools with their own pages, or find another way to include a path to those articles without listing the names of 32 other schools.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Farside6 (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nutrients

"However there is controversy as to whether the meals satisfy the daily nutrient requirements of students.". What? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.80.224.69 (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That sentence was vandalism; I've reverted it. Adam McMaster (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Svenja Adolphs

Is there a reason why Svenja Adolphs is referred to as 'Madam Svenja Adolphs'? She holds a doctorate and the academic position of Associate Professor, so presumably 'Dr Svenja Adolphs' would be most fitting, unless there is some other reason for it? 128.243.253.112 (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Establishment date vs official Royal Charter

It is important for Wikipedia university articles to provide any debatable 'establishment date' only alongside an official royal charter date; the date at which the institution gained university status. An obvious reason for this is that various polytechnics which resembled nothing like a university until the past 20 years can, very vaguely and contentiously, 'trace' their 'history' back to somebody having sneezed in about 1864, and editors trying to make their university look more prestigious accordingly go with the earliest possible date.

Now, I do not think for a second this is the case with Nottingham, a great university. However, the same way Birmingham and Leeds started with medical schools in 1825 and 1831 respectively, but did not actually gain status until 1900 and 1904, the same thing applies to Nottingham. In the case of Birmingham there are some posters around campus that say it was established in 1825.. but I think this really depends on the people running the marketing campaign at the time. Only the royal charter date is official. You might argue that Nottingham was at least founded as a university college rather than a medical college. But Bristol was founded as a university college and they follow the same standard: 1876 technically, but always 1909 officially.--Tomsega (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Great University my A.

If its so great it wouldn't have to constantly falsify its start date. 1798 ??

No, You became a Uni in 1948, end of story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.141.255.23 (talk) 16:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Reputation

There seems to be copious amounts of references to league tables in the article, and lines which seem to contain a strong element of bias by blaming parts of newer league tables for artificially deflating the university's ranking. Rankings that haven't been superceded by a new table are fair enough, as is a historical table of rankings, but to make claims that Nottingham is part of the 'elite' Sutton Trust group (no such official group exists, it was merely the 13 highest in the 1999 tables) of the highest ranking universities is misleading- this has been made clear and then edited back to the old misleading version by another user. There have been eleven annual tables since, and if the Trust made that table today it would contain different universities. You cannot be selective on what statistics to use to only select the most favourable rankings and comments (like Andrew Oswald's comment nine years ago), especially when there have been changes in the meantime. I'm all for keeping our reputation area looking good, but we must be honest about it. 86.30.211.218 (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Rankings and Reputation/Date

Nottingham University themselves states their date of establishment as 1881. That is official, and used in all university branding and merchandise. I went there so I should know. Besides, many universities dont use Royal Charter. Take Cambridge, they celebrated their 800th anniversary last year with all sorts of celebrations. Yet they were not granted their royal charter in 1209, but a good 70 years later. Oxford is the same, so in Manchester. I trust the university themselves to set their own date, not some kid on an internet forum. What gives some random bloke the right to say that 'Royal Charter' must be used. Are you saying that Cambridge are wrong?

As for the changes in the reputation section recently, all of the statistics stated are real and within the past decade. When exactly have only selective statistics been used? It says that Nottingham has been top 10 in national and international tables, and this is true. If you work out the average it has been 11th in domestic league tables (10th until couple of years ago), and top 10 in international ones. Besides, in Nottingham's own official blurb in prospectuses and on its website, its says that it is a 'top 10' university. If they say so, then I believe them.

Moreover, you cant reference absolutely everything, it just ruins the prose and flow of the article and debases it, making it look unprofessional. The NSS being controversial, and negatively affecting big institutions is well known to anyone familiar with HE and current rankings. As for the Oswald thing, who says that it is 'old', he hasn't released a new article saying his findings have changed. That paragraph focuses on Nottingham's recent reputation, and statements from official sources to that fact. Recent, for a university that is over 130 years old, is certainly in the last 15 years. If you say that some things are out of date now, then are you suggesting that the university has suddenly gone down hill in the last 5 years and is not as prestigious any more, and thus any past statements praising Nottingham are defunct? It sees to me that a couple of people with a vendetta against Nottingham are editing the article to try and make Nottingham seem not very good. That is vandalism.

Besides, has anybody read the pages of other similar universities. They are ridiculous in their unjustified statements. See Edinburgh, Kings and UCL for example, writing about how 'prestigious' and 'great' they are, selecting the odd ranking and data that paint them best. All uni pages do it. This article is the most accurate and reliable UK uni page I've seen, and doubting all of the claims praising the university by official bodies/figures does the university a disservice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.167.199 (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Dubious Historial Claim

This statement is so off the wall "Indeed, the existence of the Adult Education School has resulted in Nottingham becoming a loose contender for the crown of third oldest university in the United Kingdom, after Oxford and Cambridge". The University of St Andrews (established 1413), University of Glasgow (established 1451), University of Aberdeen (established 1495), University of Edinburgh (established 1583) and Trinity College, Dublin (established 1592) were all going strong long before expanding the University sector in England or Wales ever occurred. I have deleted the phrase from the article ~ it is too far from the truth. 79.73.252.164 (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

really bad article

i am a graduate of nottingham. however i must point out that this article is terrible. quite a lot of this article is nothing more than a list of buildings and programs offered. it is also obvious that quite a lot of the text was copied from the university brochure, because that it says is how wonderful the university is and how many awards it has won. this article is definitely NOT a GA, more like a stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg.loutsenko (talk • contribs) 08:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Campus 14 - redirects here.

I followed a link to the "Campus 14", a Nottingham University pub crawl, and was brought to this article. It doesn't seem to be mentioned at all in this article, so is there some reason for the redirect? I understand that the pub crawl is officially frowned upon by the university (no uni can be seen to be promoting irresponsible drinking, I suppose), but I'm not sure whether this is relevant.212.124.225.66 (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Propaganda rather than encyclopedic.

I would agree with the comments made about the tone of this article. The first paragraph is ridiculously over the top in its promotion of Nottingham. This should be a more objective and understated analysis rather than a constant referencing to various exagerated quotations from newspaper league tables. Nottingham is undoubtably a good university, but not as good as the introduction implies. I think that anyone would be suprised that Nottingham only comes around 20th in most league tables nowadays upon reading this prospectus like article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landan19 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Nobel error

"Nottingham is a research-led institution and the university has been awarded two Nobel Prizes this decade."

Universities can't be awarded Nobels, only people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.37.7 (talk) 11:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:University of Nottingham/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article is nowhere near the GA mark. To begin with, it is a major fluff piece and one only needs to look at the lead with all the poor sourcing and phrases like "in the league of Oxford, Cambridge...". Second, the information on the page depends dangerously on primary sources, apart from that, many sections are unreferenced. Many 'citation needed' tags have been unanswered. This is certainly not among the best articles that Wiki has produced. It needs a complete overhaul! --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  11:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Any updates on this reassessment. AIRcorn (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

No editor has responded yet. This article is nowhere near the GA mark...--Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  17:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You might want to delist it then. The instructions are on the WP:GAR page. Let me know if you need a hand. AIRcorn (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd sure appreciate it. I don't know how to go about doing that.... Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  12:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Article is delisted. AIRcorn (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  12:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

All the article needs to make it very much better is a drastic pruning or complete removal of the "Rankings and reputation" section. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

reputation tables

Hi, replaced the tables with infobox. It's much more convenient and cleaner for browsing, data going all the way back to 1994 is not needed for a general encyclopedia. Its also in use in pretty much all good UK uni articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyphoid (talk • contribs) 18:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Merging of controversy section ?

All universities have controversies but none make a whole section about it as it can often blow it out of proportion and skewer a long term view of the institution.

I suggest removing the minor controversy over 2001 donation and mergin the nottingham two thing into the history sectionXyphoid (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Logo

Yesterday the discussion and image (File:Nott logo.gif) of the old logo was removed from the article, with the reason 'I really don't think an in detail discussion of different logos is required for a general history, welcome to discuss on talk page'. I think the logo should at least be shown and mentioned (although one sentence is probably enough), because:

• It helps to identify the article, especially to those familiar with the old logo.
• The rebranding was relatively recent, and although it happened in 2001 the old logo was still in fairly common usage until at least 2006.
• The evolution of the aspect of the university which is most recognisable to the public is of general interest.
• It's only one sentence and a small image, so doesn't take up much space.

What does everyone else think? Note that the image is uploaded under fair-use, so we only have another 6 days to make a decision before it gets automatically deleted. Modest Genius ^talk 21:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree in keeping it, and agree with reasons stated above. Unlike, for example, a prospectus, an encyclopedia article should be timeless, so if the logo is of interest, all its historical forms are of equal interest. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

In the absence of any opposition, I'm adding it back. I'm open to suggestions for better text to go with it. Modest Genius ^talk 14:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

As before I would argue that it's not needed. Universities change their logos all the time, do we need a history of all the logos going back to the 19th century ? You wouldn't find it on any other university article b/c it's too specific and not a major event in the history of the university. Not sure about identifying the article. There's a whole crest and the title, also it's half way down the page. I agree it's not a major issue tho. So keep for now, I've moved it to the left for ease of reading. Xyphoid (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Boosterism

There seem to be far too many references to Oxford and Oxbridge in the lead which comes across as a rather crass attempt at boosterism (I'm a Nottingham alumnus) Francium12 (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on University of Nottingham. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121016175922/http://nottingham.ac.uk/about/structure/management/chancellor.aspx to http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/about/structure/management/chancellor.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090122064725/http://www.researchresearch.com:80/getPage.cfm?pagename=RAE2008-Power&lang=EN&type=default to http://www.researchresearch.com/getPage.cfm?pagename=RAE2008-Power&lang=EN&type=default
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090120084226/http://www.suttontrust.com:80/about.asp to http://www.suttontrust.com/about.asp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on University of Nottingham. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071121215029/http://www.privy-council.org.uk:80/output/Page49.asp to http://www.privy-council.org.uk/output/Page49.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080914150620/http://www.nottingham.ac.uk:80/about/league-table.php to http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/about/league-table.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110522085014/http://www.scribd.com/doc/54150076/THE-ARTICLE-NOTTINGHAM-UNIVERSITY-DOESN-T-WANT-YOU-TO-READ-Radicalisation-at-Universities-or-Radicalisation-by-Universities-How-a-Students-Use-of-a to http://www.scribd.com/doc/54150076/THE-ARTICLE-NOTTINGHAM-UNIVERSITY-DOESN-T-WANT-YOU-TO-READ-Radicalisation-at-Universities-or-Radicalisation-by-Universities-How-a-Students-Use-of-a

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on University of Nottingham. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110728141436/http://ukcorr.org/about/campuses/jubilee.php?facility=djlrc to http://ukcorr.org/about/campuses/jubilee.php?facility=djlrc
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110519151332/http://www.scribd.com/doc/54150076/THE-ARTICLE-NOTTINGHAM-UNIVERSITY-DOESN-T-WANT-YOU-TO-READ-Radicalisation-at-Universities-or-Radicalisation-by-Universities-How-a-Students-Use-of-a to http://www.scribd.com/doc/54150076/THE-ARTICLE-NOTTINGHAM-UNIVERSITY-DOESN-T-WANT-YOU-TO-READ-Radicalisation-at-Universities-or-Radicalisation-by-Universities-How-a-Students-Use-of-a

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on University of Nottingham. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110519151332/http://www.scribd.com/doc/54150076/THE-ARTICLE-NOTTINGHAM-UNIVERSITY-DOESN-T-WANT-YOU-TO-READ-Radicalisation-at-Universities-or-Radicalisation-by-Universities-How-a-Students-Use-of-a to http://www.scribd.com/doc/54150076/THE-ARTICLE-NOTTINGHAM-UNIVERSITY-DOESN-T-WANT-YOU-TO-READ-Radicalisation-at-Universities-or-Radicalisation-by-Universities-How-a-Students-Use-of-a

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)