Talk:University of Warwick/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Russell Group and 1994 Group

Does anyone know why the university is part of both the Russell Group and the 1994 Group? Also dare we mentioned the name some locals use - "The University of Ten Miles Outside Warwick"? - Timrollpickering 21:40 Feb 10, 2004 (UTC)

Largest student union?

A recent anonymous poster changed 'largest' to 'most active'. If it's the largest in the UK, that's notable. Rich Farmbrough 19:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Largest in terms of floor space overall, though much of this is administrative office space.
James F. (talk) 19:36, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If true, why not clarify in the main article? Is relevant to the claim. mfc


I have added the number of societies and sports clubs currently running, using information from the UWSU Portal.--Shastrix 13:48, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Beautiful campus?

"The Warwick campus is now acknowledged as the most beautiful campus in the United Kingdom." - says who?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.252.0.9 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 13 February 2005 (UTC).

Has an international reputation?

The only people advocating that Warwick has a "global" or "international" reputation are, strangely enough, Warwick students (and a certain employee of Warwick Uni Necrothesp who is a graduate of the Universities of Kent and Wales (hardly the Harvard and Princeton of UK academia)). Warwick is a good UK university, there is no doubt about it. But it has no status internationally. Only Cambridge, Oxford, LSE, Imperial, and maybe UCL, KCL, SOAS, and Edinburgh enjoy international status. Warwick has not produced any notable graduates that have made any impact on the socio-economic sphere of the world. It is currently in vogue amongst UK A-level students and students in Coventry, but that's it. If Warwick enjoys an international reputation then why do people dispute this claim (see history)? No-one disputes Oxbridge, LSE, Imperial's international reputation.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.8.103 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 10 June 2005 (UTC).

I work for Warwick, yes. So what? I have no massive loyalty to the place and I'm not saying it has an international reputation because I work there. You seem to have been saying that only Coventry people are particularly enamoured of Warwick and that it has no status outside Coventry. A bizarre statement indeed, since that implies it has no status in Britain either, something that would seem to be disproved by its positions in the British league tables. The article doesn't say that Warwick has international status (whatever that may be), but that it has an international reputation, which many people consider it does. It's also a little laughable to claim that it can't have an international reputation because a few unregistered users (you, probably) dispute that it does. By the same token, I could claim that Cambridge doesn't have an international reputation. It wouldn't make it true. Incidentally, before insulting my (or anyone else's) alma mater, you may like to know that some of us choose to attend universities that have a good reputation for teaching our subjects (or are, in some cases, among the only ones that teach our subjects), and don't make our choices out of snob value as you possibly do. -- Necrothesp 13:47, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have not denied that Warwick is currently ranked as one of the top 10 UK universities, albeit at the bottom end of the scale. I freely admit that it is an excellent UK university. But it doesn't have an international reputation\status (and dancing upon non-existent fine-definitions between "reputation" and "status" is just plain silly). I'm not being "snobbish", but I will strike down anyone who starts having delusions of grandeur (not you personally, just the collective delusion by students in Coventry that their university is at the centre of the world). Any university that classifies Timmy Mallet and Ainsley Harriott as "prominent people" is hardly a university that commands international attention!
With regards to your last comment, of course, Kent is well known as being a power-house for history, and Wales for the prestigious subject of "archive administration"....
Where do you get this idea that people at Warwick think that "their university is at the centre of the world"? Sounds suspiciously like sour grapes. Since Timmy Mallet and Ainsley Harriott are well-known people, it's hardly surprising that they're listed. Have no minor 'celebrities' ever graduated from Oxbridge and been acknowledged by the university? The role of an encyclopaedia is to provide facts, not to judge the relative merits of people. I notice you omit to mention that Valerie Amos, Estelle Morris and David Davis, for instance, are also listed.
'The prestigious subject of "archive administration"'. So, if it's not "prestigious" (a very subjective term) then it's not worth anything? Is that what you think? However, since you're obviously ignorant of the facts, I'll enlighten you. It's an obligatory subject to have a degree in if you want to work as an archivist in the UK (terribly low-brow, I know, but then we can't all be in prestigious professions) and Aberystwyth is one of only three universities in the UK that teaches it. Some of us, as I've said, choose our courses with more in mind than snob value. -- Necrothesp 18:48, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well I am a Warwick graduate but I work at a rival British University. Warwick's reputation in mathematics is certainly international, and has been for decades. I'm not really a good judge of its reputation in other areas. 19:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This discussion about the status of the university is both ridiculous and naive. The university is undoubtedly an elite university in both British and global education. It is the only university along with Oxford, Cambridge, LSE and Imperial that has never been out of the Top 10 in the Newspaper Rankings. And, according to the only valid ranking, the only one that counts, i.e. the last Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), Warwick is the fifth best research university in the UK. Now, that's a fact. Maybe it would be better if we provide all these in the page.


Warwick is probably second only to Cambridge (along with the LSE) for Economics. Having done Economics degrees at both I can tell you that the Warwick teaching quality is higher. In my opinion. It may not have the name that the LSE does in the States, but in the UK and probably Europe it is very well known. Does Europe count as "International" these days?

It is a high quality university, but does not carry the awe or mystique that the original Russell group universities have. Warwick however, does know how to market itself to an international stage and without it's involvement in big businesses it possibly couldn't have gained that much credibility in it's early years. If anything, because it is a young university, it gives Warwick the incentive to push harder to become recognised. It may not be as well known or as ground breaking a university, such as Cambridge (remember Newton), but it is consistant. One other thing to remember is that without the extra funding provided by the international students, this unversity could not expand further. They are pretty much their life's blood.

As an international student, I might have a fair perspective to add something to this discussion. Before applying for a postgraduate program this year, I have honestly never heard of the name 'Warwick'. But if this is what 'international reputaion/status' means (foreign students' acknowledgement), I would dare to say there are only two true 'international universities' in UK: Oxford and Cambridge. LSE could be well regarded by social science students, but it falls far short of Oxbridge name value. UCL, King's, and Imperial are virtually unheard of, especially without the supplemental name of 'University of London', which can be recognizable not because of its reputation but because of familiar city name. I'm going to attend Warwick, and have absolutely no doubt about its academic excellence. But if British people want to debate on a certain school's international reputation, I would advice it is of no use because there hardly such thing exists. I think it is much better to ask question, 'Why some UK universities don't enjoy such reputation as US schools of similar standing do?'

In my experience, even Oxford and Cambridge are unknown names to the general USA populace. And, equally, the man on the Clapham Omnibus would probably not be able to name any USA University. So this discussion is somewhat rarefied.

mfc

As an international student, I completely agree with some of the opinions said here in the sense that only Oxford and Cambridge are truly known by a general audience outside of the UK. LSE might be well-known in the economics field, but that is about it. And there is no way taht any other UK university has an overall international reputation, although some of them probably have a good reputation among overseas academics.


Well said by the international students here. After I left Warwick I found that when people saw my CV, those within my profession immediately recognised the value of a Warwick degree whereas most people even in the UK are unaware of Warwick's acedemic status unless they are either current or recent students, or parents of A level students. It's probably a result of being a young university and goes hand-in-hand with the advantages that also come with people having fewer preconceptions. In the US you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who can name more than one university outside their own country. In Europe people are aware of the historical universities but not so much the London ones. London universities, however, do seem extremely popular in the far east. --GothMoggie 16:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Remarkable departments

I just want to say: nicely done to the anon that re-wrote the departments bit. That was a good edit, and resolves my concerns. Thanks. -Harmil 18:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Warwick propaganda

This 'Harmil' person demanded that one provides him with a quote which justifies the characterisation of the university as having established itself as a centre of excellence in British education. The previous reference to the Sunday Times does just that. Why does he/she then insist on describing Warwick as providing just a "good education?" The only explanation I can give is that this 'Harmil' person has anti-Warwick sentiments. Is that right?—Preceding unsigned comment added by John76 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

First off, please, let's be civil and you should always assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors. Personal attacks are considered bad form, here, and I'm sure we can come to an understanding without them. Thank you.
There are a few edits that you keep trying to put through, and myself and one other person (Necrothesp) have reverted. These are:
  • The location of the school. Note that the line you're changing has nothing to do with the area being "represented", but the actual location of the school. Your edit here is factually incorrect.
  • The size of the "mystic" image. This is not a matter of page formatting. The image itself is 160 pixels wide. You keep trying to scale it up higher than that, which results in pixelation. Please either go to the site and take a good digital photograph (one that is at least as good as the one currently present) and upload it at a higher resolution or leave the current image at 160px.
  • You've repeatedly changed "has established a good reputation in higher education" to "has quickly established itself as one of the most important seats of learning in British higher education". I have to admit that I only weakly oppose this wording, but it was the lack of discussion over several reverts, during which I tried to communicate, which bothered me most. I oppose this wording mostly because of the fact that, while it might be true, it is a slightly POV representation of facts which exist in the article already. The link that you recently inserted is redundant (it exists further down in the next paragraph).
Based on this, I feel that your current edit should be reverted, but I won't do so. Why? The Wikipedia three revert rule. I'll instead ask you to take the above into account, and re-consider your edits.
Please, think about what I've said, look over your edits and correct anything that you feel is incorrect. I'll ask other editors to also have a look at this page, and make any edits they feel are appropriate.
Thank you, and welcome to Wikipedia, I hope you continue to contribute and enjoy yourself! -Harmil 10:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I second this. The larger image both looks pixellated and dominates the page too much. The university is located in Coventry (I work there!), with only small parts in Warwickshire. It does not 'represent' anywhere. Its name resulted merely from snob value - the people who set it up preferred to name it after Warwickshire (a wealthy high-status area) rather than Coventry (regarded by many as one of Britain's ugliest cities). This makes more sense when you consider that it was established before the 1974 boundary changes when Coventry was technically still in Warwickshire. -- Necrothesp 12:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok Necrothesp, I take it you disagree on my third point. Fair enough. I'll leave it alone then, and if others feel strongly they can get involved. I've just touched up some of the image locations, but it's still not ideal. The Humanities and Residence images simply don't fit in well. If you have time around campus, it would be nice to get images that actually match some of the later sections.... -Harmil 13:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the statement is a bit POV, but I don't oppose it strongly enough to want to get into a revert war over it. -- Necrothesp 17:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

OK. What I am strongly opposed to is the attempt by some people to place Warwick in the same category as universities like UCL, Nottingham, York and Edinburgh. These are very good universities, but they do not belong to the same class as Oxford, Cambridge, Warwick and LSE. Harmil kept describing the university as providing a 'good' education. But this is too poor, I believe, when we try to describe the education offered by this class of universities. I wouldn't even use this characterisation for the second tier of universities (UCL, Nottingham, York, Edinburgh, etc.).

I certainly don't think that UCL and Edinburgh at least are second tier universities. Anyway, what's the point of all this "my university is better than your university" stuff? How do you measure it? Different universities are good at different things. And statistics, as we all know, are simply a tool used to prove the POV of whoever is using them at the time. Oh, and please sign your posts. -- Necrothesp 17:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I think the key point here is that both Necrothesp and I don't feel all that strongly, and have left the language as John76 / Anon 195.14.135.155 (those are the same person, right?) prefer it. I'm not arguing the point, so I think we can move on to more important topics. Myself, I'm focusing more on the desire to get images that represent the various parts of the article rather that shots like the student residence (which, while nice for a brochure, isn't really part of an encyclopedic entry). Saddly, I'm on the wrong continent to go take a pic myself. -Harmil 13:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

To Necrothesp: Firstly, I carefully specified that those second tier universities are very good universities; it's just that they cannot be compared, in my personal opinion, to Warwick, Oxbridge and LSE. Anyway, I made that point just because I felt it was totally unjustified to describe Warwick as simply "an institution that provides good education", a description that you and Harmil seemed willing to accept. Secondly, the point that 'different universities are good at different things' is not as innocent as you think. Universities are not simply collections of departments; they are also permeated by particular spirits and cultures. In my humble opinion, the Warwick article must reflect the spirit of the university, which is a spirit of excellence, innovation and academic freedom. This must also be contrasted with the Oxbridge spirit of tyranny, elitism and academic oppresion. Warwick has a global reputation (an expression that you and Harmil so dogmatically removed from the article) just because of this spirit, which is present and readily sensed by anyone who visits Warwick. -John76

I think you're getting just a little evangelical here. This is an encyclopaedia, not an advert. As you have stated, this thing about second tier universities is "your personal opinion". That makes it inappropriate for an encyclopaedia entry. If you go back through the page history (and the discussions above), you will see that there have been editing wars with people arguing exactly the opposite - that Warwick doesn't have any form of reputation at all - which I have argued against (and been subject to personal attacks as a consequence). What I want to see is a balance between those who see Warwick as one of the world's great universities (which I don't think it yet is, although it certainly wants to be) and those who see it as no more than an insignificant little place just outside Coventry. We do this by consensus, not bulldozing our views through everyone else's. What you seem to want to put in is your own POV ("the Oxbridge spirit of tyranny, elitism and academic oppresion"), which is not appropriate. -- Necrothesp 22:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how I'm getting evangelical by pointing out what is so obvious! The problem, really, is a problem of logical deduction. There are some facts and from those facts one can or cannot deduce certain general expressions. If the expressions can indeed be deduced, I don't see any reason why they should no be used in the article (except of course the well-known anti-Warwick propaganda). The facts are: (1) Warwick is the fifth best research UK university according to the last official RAE. (2) Warwick is the only university along with Oxford, Cambridge, LSE and Imperial that has never been out of the top 10 in the Newspaper Rankings. (3) Over 90% of the departments has been rated excellent by the official QTA exercise. (3) Warwick has been praised as a world-class institution by national leaders (e.g. Blair and Clinton) and by Nobel Prize winners (e.g. John Nash). (4) Warwick has been described as 'a leading seat of learning in higher education' by newspapers like the Sunday Times. (6) Warwick has revolutionised British education by introducing Business and Manufacturing courses. (7) Warwick has revolutionised academic freedom by removing the conservative barriers placed upon academia by the Oxbridge establishment. From these facts one can draw the conclusion that Warwick belongs to the top five British universities, and therefore is a world-class institution. I don't see what your problem is! Are you saying that the above are not facts, or are you saying that they are facts but one cannot draw the above conclusion from them. I'm really puzzled here! (I don't see you complaing about the TOTALLY unjustified and overpompous statementsfound in this article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_College_London) --195.14.135.216 08:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm still of the opinion that this article is moving toward being a brochure for the school, and not an encyclopedic entry about it, but I guess the current wording is ok, if far too stat-heavy (oh and the dates are wrong... someone should find the correct dates, but they can't be listed 7th in 2004 and 8th in 2004). -Harmil 19:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that the article is becoming a brochure for the university, but I understand your concern. I'm currently preparing a section concerned with the history of Warwick's development. Hopefully, this will balance the situation.--John76 12:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

'School'? Does Harmil mean 'university'?

Images

A suggestion: Since the article begins with a description of the campus, it would be nice, I think, if you could place the images of the Claycroft residences and the Humanities building just next to the contents (in the empty space there). (I am unable to do it myself!)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.14.135.155 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC).

It's not a bad idea, but that's not quite how the MediaWiki software works. It really wants to do the layout for you, and you just describe the content (even more so than HTML). Because the TOC is added automatically, the best you could do is put one of those images there, but when you do, it ends up butting up against the bottom of the table on the right and that looks kind of lame.
What I would suggest is just getting better photos to match the actual content of the article. I think the Mystic image captures the sense of the campus just fine as it is, and is thin enough that it's not too obtrusive when sandwiching the text with the table. -Harmil 15:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

New development: It seems that Johnteslade (talk · contribs) has reverted the math building image to the original tiny exterior shot without comment today (Image:AB4BF60A89CDC058010A1B36D757323D.jpg). Personally, I much prefer the double-helix staircase. It has an obvious mathematical implication, and gives a better sense of setting, if a less comprehensive one. I'll re-produce this comment on the image talk page. Please discuss there. Thanks. -Harmil 18:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The helix photo is of the Vatican museum (a dupe of Image:VaticanMuseumStaircase.jpg). If the somehow the staircase photo is related to warwick uni i appologise for making the revert. After some research it would appear the original image is likely to be a copyvio from [1] - if its not then it needs a license tag. johnSLADE (talk) 09:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Nec, you work at the Uni. Can you confirm that the previously listed staircase does not appear in the maths building? It did seem to show student-looking people at the bottom, but I suppose that might happen at the Vatican museum... -Harmil 21:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
That staircase certainly isn't in the new maths building. And judging from it's size and cast-iron-looking floral bannisters, I can't imagine it fitting in well anywhere else on campus. I'll try to get some new pictures of the Warwick campus when the weather's better:- everything looks pretty miserable in the rain. Mike1024 (talk/contribs) 09:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
PS: Thanks in advance for the leg-work, Johnteslade, however in the future, could you please leave a comment like this on the talk page of the image so that folks like me know what's going on? Thanks! -Harmil 21:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think artical, gives anything like a resonable discription of how dull and miserable student life is on campus in Wawrick.

Random deletion

An anonymous user deleted my addition:

"The University was once known as the University of Coventry and Warwick, and removed Coventry from its name around the time when Coventry Polytechnic became Coventry University."

The edit summary of this deletion was:

"Such information firstly is not mentioned in the official Warwick website and secondly is irrelevant."

What's that to do with anything? Firstly, Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be mirrors of institutions' official websites. Secondly, what's "irrelevant" about it? I consider a note on how it came to be called the University of Warwick to be perfectly relevant. -- Smjg 12:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it was a stupid deletion and a stupid reason for deletion. However, it was always referred to just as the University of Warwick from its foundation. Is your addition just an official name that was never actually used in practice (in which case this should be noted)? I have to say that I've never heard it. -- Necrothesp 13:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
It's something I remember being told during my time at Hereward College. Do you know any explanation of how the name came about that's more likely to be true? -- Smjg 09:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Simple snob value. The explanation is buried in one of my posts above, so I'll repeat it here. The people who set it up preferred to name it after Warwickshire (a wealthy high-status area) rather than Coventry (regarded by many as one of Britain's ugliest cities). This makes more sense when you consider that it was established before the 1974 boundary changes when Coventry was technically still in Warwickshire. -- Necrothesp 18:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
So why wasn't it called the University of Warwickshire? Because back in those days they liked to confuse people by dropping the "shire" from county names? -- Smjg 09:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
No idea, but in those days no university was named after a shire county. Maybe they thought it sounded odd. Also remember that the official name of shire counties doesn't have a "shire" in it - it is officially called "The County of Warwick". -- Necrothesp 01:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Some information taken from the book "Making a University", published for the 25th Anniversary, may shed some light on this. When the original proposal for a University was made the grant of land was split between Coventry Council and Warwickshire County Council. It was felt by the organising committee that to call the new university The University of Coventry might be seen as denying the role that the county had in establishing the institution. Other names that were suggested included the University of Mid Warwickshire. The name University of Warwick was proposed by Bishop Bardsley. The Coventry City representative on the committee declared that "Coventry didn't care what its name was as long as the bid was successful." Coventry's concession on the name helped secure broader funding from Warwickshire and other bodies and ensured a unanimous vote on pursuing the case for the establishment of the University. Tomabbott 12:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
What's your source for this? Do we have "The County of Che", "The County of Berk" et al just the same? -- Smjg 21:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Umm - see comment below on source. There are copies in the University Library and Modern Records Centre if you want to go and see the physical copy. Or I have one on my desk... Tomabbott 08:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
My source for it? Well, it's not particularly arcane or little-known. Cheshire is the County of Chester, not the County of Che. Chestershire, corrupted to Cheshire. Berkshire is unusual, in that it comes from a description instead of a place and has always been Berkshire. Hampshire, before you ask, is formally the County of Southampton. You'll find them referred to in this way in many old documents. -- Necrothesp 17:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
I think you mean "formerly" not "formally". See Hampshire#History. Similarly, Cheshire is "Cheshire (or archaically the County of Chester)" over here. Just as you say, old documents. If you can find any evidence of the "County of Warwick" styling having any current official status or even use (besides in organisations that just haven't bothered changing their names), I'd like to see it. Maybe it was at the time when the university was named (whenever this was), IWC it might make sense to state that the name is short for "University of the County of Warwick". -- Smjg 10:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, no actually, I can spell! However, maybe "traditionally" would be more accurate. What I was replying to was your apparent questioning that Warwickshire had ever been "the County of Warwick" (referring to "The County of Che", "The County of Berk" et al). -- Necrothesp 00:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

That's very interesting, Tomabbot. Could we maybe use such an information in a 'history' section? Can you provide us with the exact reference (page included)? John76

Sure - the information is from "Making a University. A Celebration of Warwick's First 25 Years", pages 16-17. The footnote says "This account is compiled from Barrat's [Barrat was chairman of the promotions committee] diaries Vol.VI, from notes made by Henry Rees and from correspondence held in the Coventry Record Office". The book was written by my colleague Roberta Warman with the then Registrar Mike Shattock as part of the 25th anniversary celebrations. I should mention that I work at the University in the Comms Office. If you want to fact check anything in your history please let me know. I can also look at copyright issues for any photos you may wish to use. BTW - we have no record of Ainsley Harriot receiving a degree from Warwick, honorary or otherwise.Tomabbott 09:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you Tomabbot. Concerning the photos: We would be grateful if you could provide us with licence tags for these photos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AB4BF60A89CDC058010A1B36D757323D.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Visit7lrg.jpg, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Scarmanexterior.jpg. In the Universit of Warwick website the pictures can be found here: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/communications/corporate/clinton/visitimages/visit7/ http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/conferences/scarman/ http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/about/tour/scifac/

I've added a copyright tag to the image of Clinton. Unfortunatley the image of the Maths building was taken by a member of the Maths department and so the copyright lies with them, not the University. Likewise the picture of Scarman copyright lies with Warwick Conferences. I can source alternative images that have established University copyright and provide thise for use. Tomabbott 08:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm in the mathematics department, and could take a replacement photograph (of the Zeeman building and/or Scarman House) which I'd be happy to allow to be used. I'm intrigued by the Ainsley Harriot matter - I'd understood that he was an alumnus (on reflection, I think I read it here) but he's not listed anywhere in the Graduate Association directory, so if he was ever here, he never graduated. - Nicholas Jackson 08:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Rewritting the article?

This article must be rewritten completely. It does not do justice to a university of the reputation of Warwick. I propose the following headings:

  1. Introduction: Here we must stress the international reputation of the university, its innovative spirit, and its stark contrast to Oxbridge conservatism.
  2. Location: The stuff on campus must be placed here.
  3. Attainment: Position in the RAE, Newspaper rankings and other (serious) statistics.
  4. History: A summary of the history of the university so far.
  5. Hall of Fame: Link to another article with the title: 'Hall of Fame of the University of Warwick' or something like that; this article will be divided in strict subcategories, e.g. Politicians, Philosophers, Mathematicians, Musicians, Journalists, etc.
  6. Students Union: A brief mention of the structure of the Union and the significant role it played in the transformation of British education.
  7. Warwick Arts Centre
  8. The Warwick Mathematics Department: A summary of how the Warwick Mathematics Department influenced mathematical research
  9. The Warwick Philosophy Department: A summary of how the Warwick Philosophy Department influnced the philosophical landscape in G.B.--John76 18:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi again John76. Let me respond point-by-point if I may. First, the title of this comment: Harmil's first rule of Wikipedia is: Nothing is ever urgent. Really.
  1. Please explain your concerns with the current intro. It sounds as if you want this to be more of a brochure, and it's not. Can you cite other encyclopedias which have given an equally one-sided intro for the school?
  2. What is "the stuff on campus"?
  3. There are a lot of statistics that aren't terribly important, and I think the ones we have now suit just fine.
  4. How is the current history not sufficient?
  5. Is there a "Hall of Fame" at the university? Is it notable in some way, or just an alumni award sort of thing?
  6. Explain what you mean. How did the student union "transform" British education?
  7. We currently have information about the arts centre, no?
  8. Ditto above.
  9. Once again, explain yourself here. You're asserting that the department created change, but we can't agree with you unless you explain what sort of change you're refering to.
Thank you for your obvious interest in this article, and do feel free to continue to perform research and find additional, new information about the school (or any other topic on Wikipedia) -Harmil 21:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello. Just a few points: (1) The current intro focuses on the fact that the university is a campus. That, in my opinion, can't be case in an encyclopedic entry about a university. The intro must specify in a very general manner the current status of the university in British and world higher education scene. A nice example of what I mean can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_College_London. (By the way, I don't see you people complaining about the totally unjustified and overpompous elements of that article!) (2) My concern is mainly with the insufficient divisions in the article. For example, under the heading 'Standing' one can find information that is irrelevant to that heading. (3) You asked 'How is the current history not sufficient'? But the history of the university is non-existent in the article!!! You can check the aforementioned UCL article to see what I mean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_College_London) (4) About the Hall of Fame thing: What I mean is simply that there has to be a different article about the prominent people of Warwick university, in which one could list those people in strictly defined sub-categories (check the previous article again).--195.14.135.96 08:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

What is all this "has to be" and "must" stuff? If someone writes it then it will exist. That's the way Wikipedia works. Why not write it yourself instead of telling us what the article should be like? If we don't like it then we'll change it. And most universities, incidentally, don't have separate articles just about their famous alumni. But if there are enough (and I'm not sure there are) then create one. Also remember that UCL has existed for 140 years longer than Warwick, so is not really comparable in history or numbers of famous alumni. -- Necrothesp 01:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Brutalist?

I am trying to remember but I don't recall seeing any Brutalist archtectutre at Warwick. No naked concrete as far as I can see, but lots of white tiles. Is that modernism? Billlion 07:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, as I've never been there to see it, but keep this in mind:
"The line between brutalism and ordinary modernism is not always clear since concrete buildings are so common and run the entire spectrum of modern styles. Designs which embrace the roughness of concrete or the heavy simplicity of its natural forms are considered brutalist. Other materials including brick and glass can be used in brutalism if they contribute to a block-like effect similar the the strongly articulated concrete forms of early brutalism." [2]
And oddly enough, one of the buildings that they use an example (and perhaps even the source of the confusion?) is the Warwick Towers, which is in Houston, Texas. [3] -Harmil 10:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Kill the revert war

If the two anons don't kill the revert war, I'm going to consider this vanalism, re-write the entire page into a much shorter, neutral form and ask an admin to protect it. I don't want to engage in unpleasant tactics like that, though, so please just work it out. Clearly the page was turning into a pile of statistics that doesn't do it any good (and sounds like a bad ad). The other version is also rather sparse. There are some areas that could use a real description. So... how about it? Can you compromise? Discuss... -Harmil 19:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Two points: (1) It seems to me, Harmil, that you are a bit unfair here. You yourself have demanded that any information put in the article must either be justified by reference to a source or be able to be deduced from facts that are referable to external sources. The anon is trying to remove exactly such an information. The stats by the Sunday Times represent real facts, whether some people want that or not. (Cf., for example, the article on the University of York.)Given that I spent a lot of my time the last couple of weeks trying to justify particular passages of the article, I'd find it terribly dissapointing for that information to be removed, just because someone simply does not agree with you that we must justify the information provided by reference to external sources. (2) As i mentioned above, I'm currently preparing a section about the history of the university. This will balance the article. But this does not mean that the information currently present does not represent properly the university. Such statistics have not been created out of thin air; they are based on real facts and are used by all British universities. --John76 07:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

You're missing my point. You can support the claims of the article without drowning the article in a sea of statistics. There is a balance to be struck here, and you seem to have gone from one extreme to the other. Also, you're reverting the work of another user, which is not terribly helpful (even when they, in turn, ignore your work). Attempt to reach a compromise and you will find that others actually want to help make the article all it can be.

I think you're not paying much attention here. You've completely ignored my second point above. I have already said that I acknowledge the need for a more balanced article. But this doesn't mean that we must remove information that is at least as valid as any other. It only means that we must enrich the article with more and more information, especially one that does not have to do with statistics (but I repeat, this does not mean that 'statistics is bad'). [I thought that this exactly was the idea behind the Wikipedia project: i.e. to enrich an article, not destroy it!) Hopefully, you'll realize that I am doing my best for the creation of a great 'University of Warwick' article. Please show some faith to those of us who are really interested in this article (and not just want to express our anti-Warwick sentiments).

I did read what you wrote, and I'm starting to get the impression that you did not read what the anon contributor wrote [4]. Sure, you have ideas for future edits, and that's great. But I'm talking about your blowing away someone else's edits repeatedly, regardless of the fact that they were not vandalism, and were no more POV than the text they were replacing. What's more, I'm personally of the opinion that at the very least, the first paragraph was more readable in the other edit. Also, and once again, please sign your comments on talk pages. Thanks. -Harmil 12:45, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I did indeed read what the anon contributor wrote and I freaked out! Where are the references for his/her changes? Anyway, you can modify the article as much as you like, as long as you don't destroy information that is justified by reference to external sources. --John76 21:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I see that anon is back - what's the policy on reverting to previous text? Tomabbott 07:59, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok - so reading the anon edits more closely just convinced me to revert to earlier version (sorry for not marking the page edit rv. note to self - must learn more about this...). Too many unsupported statements, expressions of opinion and anti-warwick sentiments. BTW - we really don't have a record of Ainsley Harriot having recieved a degree from here. Lets get that fact straight please. If this revert annoys the regulars then please let me know and I will stand back and let you manage this - just keeping an eye in. Tomabbott 08:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm - anon editors seem determined to persist with a particular edit - so can someone please justify or substaniate the following - (1)It was established in 1965 as part of government plans to expand higher education to a mass public. - The University was not established by the Govt but as a collaboration between Coventry and Warwickshire councils, local businesses and other interest groups. The initial idea for a University in Coventry was raised in 1943 by the then Bishop of Coventry, Dr Neville Gorton, as a means to attract scientists and technology specialists to the city. (source The Making of a University, p9). This idea was initially dropped due to the other problems the city was facing at the time. The idea continued to be tabled during the 50's, but it was a national political focus on increasing access to education that spurred the local parties to reignite the campaign to secure a University. To reiterate - the establishment of the University was based on a strong collaboration of local stakeholders who saw the benefits that such an institution could have on the economy at a time when national policy encouraged the establishment of such institutions - this is a more complex picture than allowed for in the current edit. (2)The campus mainly consists of low-cost Modern architecture - source for this? I'm not sure that the accounts for how much the buildings cost are readily available. (3)The low cost was imposed by the government of the day, which required the new universities to be built at rates far below those previously used for Britain's older universities. - source please? (4)Why trash the good work, backed by stats, of Harmil and John76 - none of their statements about the performance of the institution were made without reference to actual data (5)Warwick has quickly established itself as an effective university. - I can't square up this statement with that in the linked reference which states "Warwick has established itself as one of our leading seats of learning." That sounds like being more that simply effective to me. Looks like anti-Warwick POV. (6)One of a rash of medical schools opened in an attempt to increase the relatively low numbers of doctors trained in the UK - the National Health Service has been recruiting large numbers of doctors from overseas, thus denuding a number of developing countries of their medical skills. - Rash? Thats a rather loaded word, certainly not an objective statement of fact, and how is the statement about recruitment overseas related to this article? It looks like a statement of political opinion that has no relevance to this article.(7)Ainsley Harriot is not an alumni - please people! (8)Hospitalty Services - I think previous edits added the full capability of this service - Radcliffe, Arden etc.
The revert seems to trash a lot of good research by two people who have consistently backed up statements with stats. Yes I have a vested interest (and publically declared interest, unlike our anon reverters) but this reverting goes against the sound principles and approach taken by John, Harmil and Necrothesp. Tomabbott 08:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Can the anon editor please provide a more specific reference about plate glass universities and the cost of buildings - the ref given is Muthesius, Stefan, 2001, "The post-War university", Yale. Is Muthesius makiing a general statement or a specific comment about Warwick - can the editor actually demonmstrate that Warwick buildings were cheap to build. Because a general statement can be made about Uni's at the time, does this mean such a statement can be specifically related to a single institution?Tomabbott 15:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Muthesius writes extensively about *all* the universities established at that time, AND THEN specifically discusses each individual institution, referring to expenditure in each of them. Does Tomabbott have a shred of evidence that Warwick somehow had a shedload more cash than any other "plate glass" university built at that time which would contradict Muthesius's research?
Which is all fine - will anon be making the same statment on the pages for all the other plate glass institutions - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_glass_university - or will they be leaving the only comment on the issue on the Warwick page?
I haven't actually contributed to any other plate glass university pages since I don't personally know any of the others - but I'm happy for anyone to add the information as they see fit. What is clear is that just because something is true about several institutions, it

does not invalidate it if it is only mentioned on one institution's page. I should add, in case anyone is in any doubt, that I think Warwick is a very fine university and I spent a happy time there. I just don't think it's right to pretend it's more than it is, anymore than I think it right to pretend that it is less than it is. Incidentally, the brand-new Shanghai Jiao Tong ranking of the "world's 100 best universities" lists 10 UK institutions, but not Warwick. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1551180,00.html for the full story. Like everyone else, I suspect, I think these rankings are weird. Depending on what you want to study, a "world-class" university may be the best place on the planet or one of the worst: not all subjects are of the same rank. Therefore these composite institution-wide rankings are not very helpful and certainly don't qualify an institution to label itself as "world class" - let's leave that to sloppy journalists.

I wonder if what might be more useful would be to create a section on the history of the campus (which has been discussed before) and put the commentary on buildings there. It seems a little out of place slapped in the introductory paragraph. I may pick this up as I have a number of sources re: development after the initial construction that may be of interestTomabbott 15:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Warwick Blogs

Should there be a section on Warwick Blogs (http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk)? I'm certain it's notable as it is a large community of weblogs, possibly the largest owned/ran/maintained by a university. I understand that Harvard University has a similar scheme, and Oxford University is known to be developing one. There was a Guardian article published 05/05/2005 and it can be found at: http://education.guardian.co.uk/elearning/story/0,10577,1476470,00.html—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.205.192.27 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC).

"By permission only" images deleted

Well, it seems several images have been zapped from the article, probably due to our policy of no "by permission only" images. This means all the images 'by permission of warwick comms office only' have been removed.

Needless to say, if anyone has any "properly free" replacement images, now's the time.

Mike1024 (talk/contribs) 08:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Research Assessment Exercise

"The University was ranked 5th among the UK's 100 universities for quality of research in the UK Funding Councils' 2001 Research Assessment Exercise." Was it? According to the Times Higher Eduation table of RAE results it came 6th (see http://www.scotecon.net/publications/Chatterjireport.pdf for the THES rankings as part of a report by another body), after Cambridge, Imperial, Oxford, LSE and the Institute of Cancer Research. I suppose the Institute of Cancer Research is not a University, but it was RAE listed, and ranked higher than Warwick in the tables, so should not be ignored. I have made the changes, please list an alternative source before reverting. ThomasL 23:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Mens Agitat Molem

The most direct translation of mens agitat molem is "Spirit moves the matter", but the english equivalent is mind over matter. Iridium77 15:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC) (or could be "Makes your teeth Chatter")

Alumni - shouldn't they actually be famous or notable?

Recent edits have added a number of alumni who don't even have their own Wikipage. The current fad seems to be to add DJs, most of whose pages appear to be vanity pages.

Could we have a discussion on the validity of some of these alumni listings? I'm not saying that someone I've never heard of is therefore not notable, but if someone's claim to fame is DJing in the Students' Union then I feel justified in questioning their notability. - Stevecov 02:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest that there's a similar problem with the list of lecturers and staff. Particularly in relation to Politics and Philosophy departments, I think we're making the list look worthless when people are added who others in their own field probably haven't even heard of. In relation to the alumni, I think DJ Yoda is reasonably well known, although other recent additions clearly don't deserve to be there.--CyberCD 13:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
This is exactly the debate I wanted to have: as I said, personally I've never heard of DJ Yoda (crazy name, crazy guy?!) but I am glad someone else knows of him. I also agree re staff: history was my discipline but I have never heard of "David Hardiman", whilst none of the two listed politics and four listed philosophy lecturers even has a Wikipage (maybe there's a deep philosophical reason for this...!). Any more thoughts? - Stevecov 16:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm currently in the Politics department and I wouldn't say the two lecturers listed were likely to be the most 'notable', so I think I'll take them off. I'm hesitant about doing the same for Philosophy as I wouldn't know which were noteworthy, although their lack of Wikipage probably says a lot.
Wyn Grant is the world's leading expert on the EU's Common Agricultural Policy, considering it's impact on world trade and development, he's a pretty big name (on TV, quoted in newspapers etc). He needs a Wikipedia page, that's all (I'll get round to it at some point). Ben Rosamond meanwhile is high-profile academically, his book on EU integration is the academic book on the subject, used in European postgraduate courses at universities across the world. But if you have any suggestions on who are more 'notable' figures, you should add them. The more the merrier. The philosophers are pretty big names too, I was a phil student at Warwick and they have really good reputations, especially Ansell-Pearson (leading expert on Nietzsche]] and Houlgate (leading expert on Hegel). Hobbs is a bit more iffy but she is an up-and-coming philosopher with a good media profile (she's on Radio 4 all the time). --RingoStarr 08:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, wouldn't it be sensible to split current and former staff? --CyberCD 16:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Summary Paragraph

This is far too long, if you compare it to Oxford's or some of the other universities. It has too much info, is confused and doesn't give a concise sense of what Warwick is about. Any takers on an edit? --RingoStarr 08:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Owzat? Iridium77 21:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Images

Many of the recently-added images on this page look like they have the wrong copyright tags. The photo of Clinton, for example, looks like it was taken from [5]. Would anyone object if I removed them? Mike1024 (t/c) 12:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I was at the Clinton event and a number of students were invited to take photos from a special photo area, so it is possible that very similar photos from the same angle exist. Thus, it may not be the official version and we should give it the benefit of the doubt. Alternatively, if it is theirs, would Warwick mind these photos being here promoting the university? What's the process on copyright, I'm still a bit of a newbie. --193.220.13.110 07:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
If the University owns the copyright I suggest someone (perhaps currently working at Warwick) asks the University's press officer (corporate communications). I am sure if they can they would be happy to help in the interest of their publicity. Billlion 18:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Certainly, we used to have some images tagged 'use by permission of the warwick comms office only', but they were deleted since that's now not allowed (see above, "By permission only" images deleted). The press officer is Tom Abbot, and if you search this page for 'tomabbott' I think he's been here. We could approach him, but I can understand him being reluctant to release the image under the license we would require - GFDL, is it? - allowing unlimited editing and unchecked commercial reproduction by outside parties.
As to the Clinton picture being taken by a student, I don't think there's much doubt it's a direct copy; the position of the hands shows the two images were taken at the same instant, and they're both 400x523 65.87kB images. And it's not just Image:Bill clinton warwick 2.jpg; Image:Warwick beautiful campus composite.jpg, Image:Warwick arts centre.jpg and Image:University of Warwick Finances.gif also match images on the warwick website. Unless the uploader is somehow authorised to release those images as GFDL, they're mislicensed. Mike1024 (t/c) 21:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


I have been approached before about this and did give permission for a number of images to be used here. However, a wikimoderator decided that that wasn't enough and deleted the images. We have no particular problem with the images referred to or their use. I guess under the rules of wikipedia they class as copyrighted. However, a quick glance around the copyright/fair use tags suggests that properly tagged the images should be ok to use - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#Fair_use
I think it's more a case of satisfying the legal minds of wikipedia itself than stressing too much about whether we will allow usage.Tomabbott 07:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way - a better wikipedia editor than me should tag the images - I suspect I'd end up using not quite all the right tags and still having the images deleted! But for starters how about Template:Fair Use In Tomabbott 07:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary Paragraph / Location

The introductory para now contains pretty detailed info on the location of the Uni, including that Warwick the uni is nowhere near Warwick the town. While this is important, and part of our idiosynacratic identity, are we spending too much time telling people where Warwick is rather than what it's about? I'm torn; what does everyone else think? --RingoStarr 12:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Gibbet Hill Separate Article

I say lets keep the Gibbet Hill article separate... the more the merrier and people can add more detail on Gibbet Hill specific stuff there without cluttering up the main Uni article. They're all linked together anyway by the template at the bottom of all Warwick entries. What does everyone else think? --RingoStarr 12:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There's more discussion on that page's talk. As it stands, the article about Gibbet Hill is worthless; it could potentially be worked up beyond the stub that it is, but unless that happens I feel it should be merged. Iridium77 22:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Warwick Business School

We need to include information on WBS or create a separate article. Its one of the biggest parts of the university, highly ranked for research and with (dare I say it?) an international reputation. The article isn't complete without it (especially as WBS redirects to University of Warwick). I don't know enough about it really and a trawl of the website didn't help much (although I did find this article [6]) Any volunteers? --RingoStarr 13:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

List of academics

This list is getting a bit long, with people without wikipedia articles, each listed as a leading authority in their own particular area. This list is getting rather long for inclusion in the article, and I suspect some of the individuals are below the threshold for notability implied by WP:BIO. I am sure many Warwick academics, as at any good university, are leading authorities in their own area, but if they are not known outside it, or have not got significant public recognition like an FRS, or a major prize, I feel we should leave them out. Anyone else agree to a cull? Billlion 16:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Its just getting worse.Suggest we delete all the red link people. If they are notable enough to meet [[WP:BIO}] then someone will at least write a stub!Billlion 19:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Academic Departments, University of Warwick

Template:Academic Departments, University of Warwick has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Ian3055 14:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

New pictures

I was just thinking yesterday of taking my camera over to campus for a few snaps to replace the ones that seem to have been removed since last time I visited the page, but it seems somebody has beaten me to it.

Nice pictures, but they would be better if they didn't have a visible datestamp on them. I think most of them (all except "Warwick LRC") could be cropped to remove the stamp without losing anything important. BTW: What does "LRC" stand for? The only time its used in the page is in the caption of the photo, which seems to show the back of the manufacturing centre and a bit of the computer science department. JulesH 09:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of the new pictures seem a bit dark and have been taken at night it seems. Perhaps pictures taken in normal day light will show more detail and look better on the page. Snowman 10:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Vick Picture

The picture of Arthur Vick, does not look like Arthur Vick at all. Anyone else agree?

I think you're right. I think it's Heronbank instead. There are some photographs (including a few panoramic shots) at [7] - have a look and see what you think — Nicholas Jackson 22:51, 26 August 2006 (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 23:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)