Talk:Faculty of Mathematics, University of Cambridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Merging Department Information in this article

I think that it is unnecessary to hae one article of the Math Faculty and for the two department therein. I have placed merge notices on both of the department article to be merged into this one.

--chemica 08:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a merge tag on this page as well, per merging guidelines. phoebe 19:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep separate - I would rather see an article for each of the departments; however, I do think the Faculty article is somewhat redundant.

DAMTP has a distinctive history, both within the field of mathematics and as a department within Cambridge University. Although the current article does not yet go into the details of this, I am sure someone will flesh it out in the future. Aquilina 13:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree - historically DAMTP had a very distinct ethos, especially under Batchelor.Linuxlad 21:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• This is an empty article. What should be done? Guy 19:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Faculty long pre-dates the Departments so there should be plenty of history to cover if you can find suitable published sources. Joseph Myers 20:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge - I agree that DAMTP has a distinct history, but given the smallish size of each of the three articles, there seems to be a prima face case for merging them. Both the departments in question would become major sections within the Faculty article, so would be perfectly visible. Redirects from the existing dept titles would bring viewers to the main faculty article okay. -- MightyWarrior 13:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge despite having a DAMTP PhD. If anyone adds enough to make it worth having a separate page we can always spin it off then.--BozMo talk 14:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge. At the moment none has enough content to warrant separate pages. Mlm42 19:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging with the article of CMS

The Math Faculty can be thought of a part of CMS (in a broad sense). I think merging this article in to the CMS article would be a good idea. What do you guys say?Hwasungmars 22:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The CMS and the Faculty of Mathematics are two completely different things and hence Wikipedia should keep separate articles for the two. Whereas the CMS is just a building complex (i.e. a physical location), the Faculty is an instution, whose existence is independent of its address at any given time. Indeed the Faculty existed long before the CMS and the CMS houses more than just the Faculty (the Moore library is part of the University Library, no the Faculty of Mathematics, and the Newton Institute is not even part of the University). Torcuato Battaglia 17:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Structure of the university

While I don't really care if the pages get re-organized or merged etc, remember that:

• The faculties generally deal with teaching while generally departments deal with research. While many/most members of DAMTP/DPMMS are also associated with the Faculty of Maths there are people in other parts of the university who are also linked, e.g. half the UCS staff seem to be members of the Faculty of Maths.

• The CMS is just a physical site which contains a number of departments and groups, not all of which are directly related to maths, e.g. escience isn't really related to DAMTP/DPMMS but has offices in CMS.

Mind you having DAMTP just rediect to the Faculty of Maths page is even more confusing, especially when 'DAMTP' doesn't appear in the visible contents-list...

Faculties are grouped together in Faculty Groups, while departments are generally part of Schools. The two trees seem to have little overlap. Jon Peatfield 15:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that CMS and Math Faculty is different. But this difference is only recognized from the people in Cambridge. (More precisely, I believe that only the people who hang around CMS would recognize the difference!) I think wikipedia should give a general overall not a confusing precise description. In this sense merging the article and commenting in the difference seems plausible. (Actually, I just asked my math friends now right next to me, but they even can't tell the difference!) Hwasungmars 22:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)