Talk:University of Oxford

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the University of Oxford article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 3 months

England Top‑importance

	England portal 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education

Middle Ages High‑importance

	Middle Ages portal 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neuroscience Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

University of Oxford Top‑importance

	University of Oxford portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford 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.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

University of Oxford 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 15, 2006	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
November 8, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
March 31, 2018	Peer review	Reviewed
January 22, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

GA Reassessment

University of Oxford

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delist - Article lacks significant citations. @Onegreatjoke, the way people reflect that discussions are not a vote on Wikipedia, is to say something like "I !vote delist". —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2007-listed, level 4 vital article lacks significant numbers of citations. I have tagged over 30 locations, but more may still be there. Without significant improvement, the article should be delisted as failing GA criterion 2. As this is a vital article, with a huge number of reliable sources written about it, I do not think that it will be too much work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Doesn't seem like anyone is going out of their way too fix the article from the ground up so I vote to delist. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notable alumni

@Polygnotus: you have tagged the section with {{summarize}} and {{Excessive examples}}, can you explain your reasoning? Oxford is a former good article and King's College London, a current good article, has a similar sized section. TSventon (talk) 06:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon: Of course. In order to be considered WP:GOOD an article needs to meet these 6 criteria. A section like Notable alumni is basically useless to 99% of readers. Because its a sea of blue links you can't even click a specific link on mobile. Leaving behind a paragraph or two when splitting is fine; but this is clearly excessive and should be drastically cut down. While the uni may or may not have had a large influence on the individual, the individual often had little to no influence on a uni that has existed for 928 years. Polygnotus (talk) 09:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having more recently been the promotor for UCL's GA, changing the alumni section to a more summary style (as mentioned on the GA criteria) was one of the things requested by the referee. Length of alumni sections has also been flagged as an issue to be addressed on other older GA university articles, such as Durham. The KCL section should probably be cut down as well. Robminchin (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I am fine with keeping people who have made a deep lasting impact on the uni. Polygnotus (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with removing these tags. Given the length of the article, the examples don't seem excessive. Chetsford (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They can be removed when the conditions to do so have been met (the problem has been fixed). Help:Maintenance template removal. Polygnotus (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'll remove them once a consensus has emerged to do so. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MAINTENANCEDISAGREEMENT point 1 and 2. Polygnotus (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DETAG. The tags will be removed once a consensus has emerged to do so. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then the problem will need to be fixed as well. Polygnotus (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. That's how it works. Consensus will determine if a problem exists in the first place and, if it does, how it should be addressed. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the alumni section here is probably over-long. As there is a separate article that has been split off, what should be included here is a summary of List of University of Oxford people. For example, everything after "At least 30 other international leaders have been educated at Oxford" could be removed – the article doesn't need to say who "this number includes". There are also incorrect statements ("Of all the post-war prime ministers, only Gordon Brown was educated at a university other than Oxford" – Starmer was educated at Leeds as well as Oxford) and outdated statements ("Over 100 Oxford alumni were elected to the House of Commons in 2010"). Robminchin (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPLIT gives instructions: If material is split from an article, consider whether a summary section should be created, and whether a {{Main}} template should be placed at the top of the section to link to the new page. In general, if the split is due to size, then a summary section is required; if the split is due to content (or scope), then a summary section is unlikely to be required. On the talk page of the new and old articles, include the template {{Copied}}. and Add a summary, usually of a couple of paragraphs and one image, of the newly created subtopic (unless complete removal is appropriate). in this case, because it is a CONSPLIT, leaving nothing behind would be appropriate but I am also not opposed to a summary of a couple of paragraphs max. Polygnotus (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a size split, not a content split (these aren't "two or more distinct topics with share the same or similar titles"), so a summary is necessary. The advice at WP:UNIGUIDE to "limit[] the explicit list to very well-known persons (heads of state, historical figures, etc.) and adding a narrative summary of statistics on such things as Nobel Prizes, other prestigious awards, and so on" is also relevant here as to what should be included to summarise the list. This being the Oxford article, the line on inclusion in the summary will, of necessity, be quite high – including all of the heads of state and government, for instance, would already be over 60 people. Robminchin (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I partially disagree that this is a size split, but that is moot. In those couple of paragraphs we don't have space to namedrop 60+ people so we need to use "x heads of state, x nobel laureates" et cetera which is the advice of UNIGUIDE. Polygnotus (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

@Mein Khoob Mein Khamkhawa: Hiya! I reverted your recent edits (and accidentally clicked the rollback link; my bad). Can you please explain your motivation for them?

I am referring to these edits:

1

2

It is unclear to me what you are trying to achieve and why.

We should only remove maintenance templates when the problems have been remedied.

Polygnotus (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mein Khoob Mein Khamkhawa: Please respond here. Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 11:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit protection request

I've requested an increased level of page protection due to the high level of IP vandalism/unconstructive edits with nonsense edit summaries. Robminchin (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But(s)

Chatting: If that's what you want. You seem passionate about hanging these "but"s out to dry. Is that what you want? User:Robminchin I think it is rather contrasting in this instance. For me, as long as it is acceptable it should be allowed. 2601:646:A200:E5B0:2A5E:3804:8C5D:507F (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a contrast, but an accumulation, so I've boldly change the "but/however" to "additionally". Bazza 7 (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Captivating. I'm Gen Z and there is a new strategy in using 'but'(s) that I'm trying to teach others now. Thank you, and, I agree - some 'but's are better than others but it's quite a stink with some Wikipedia contributors. I don't know if it's a chicken and egg thing but new standards from Gen Z help raise these opportunities. Thank you for the gloss (as we say). If the article can take "additionally" without any argument, I'm fine with that. It does seem like it's only a big 'but'(s) thing. Two options for the price of one is not bad though. I'll watch to see if any other opinions on this women section or other 'but'(s) I update elsewhere. New opportunities daily as I skim the articles. 73.158.120.223 (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]