Template talk:University of Oxford

Getting too complicated?

Are the recent edits to this template really desirable? It started off fairly clean and simple, but lots of stuff of marginal interest has been added over the last few months, and I'm not at all convinced by the "spicing up" in the latest version. What do other people think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan A Jones (talk • contribs) 12:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree, we should discuss changes here before introducing icons into the template. I think it isn't desirable for a navbox which is intended for navigation. Aloneinthewild (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Aloneinthewild: I felt it helped seperate the colleges a bit. As it currently is, it just feels a bit too much like a monotonous block of text to me. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 15:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion request made 21:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request :

Navigation templates are essentially like the Yellow Pages: Dull, boring, alphabetically-ordered and practical. While I understand the desire to make Wikipedia's presentation less boring (believe me, I do), the navigation template isn't the place to do so. Ask yourself this: Do the shields help navigation in the context of the template? If one has not lived in Oxford c. 13th century, the answer is probably "no". What does? Categorizing, alphabetizing, and simplifying more than anything else. François Robere (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposed change

The template currently lists Archaeology and Archaeology of the History of Art as separate departments, but they were both merged into the School of Archaeology in 2000. The university's web page only recognises the School of Archaeology as a department, and the other two institutes are now referred to as sub-departmental sites. I propose that these two links are replaced with one to the School of Archaeology page. Both institutes still have their own pages that can be accessed via the School of Archaeology one, and replacing these two links with one will also make the template smaller. Amys eye (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Gardens, Libraries and Museums

Shoud we add a section for GLAM [1]? And should we treat GLAM as a pseudo-division (which in many ways it is) or give it an entirely separate section? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm also thinking about what should be included, but as a minimum Ashmolean Museum, Bodleian Library, Botanic Garden, History of Science, Natural History, Pitt Rivers. Other possibles include Bate Collection and the Taylor Institution. I believe that the University Parks are not part of GLAM but run entirely separately. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

As there seems to be no objection I will implement this (as a pseudo-division) soon unless anyone speaks up. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Deletion

An editor (a self-styled inclusionist, no less) has now deleted material twice.[2] Though an edit summary is called for that is properly explanatory, in this instance the one given (even when noted as less than completely helpful) was "trim." That is not what happened. What the editor did was delete material outright, not tighten text - how we might appropriately use that edit summary. nor did the editor see fit, when this was pointed out, to expand upon his rationale. Not quite what is hoped for in collegial editing. When deleting, one should of course give a fulsome reasoning - this is more so the case when questioned as to one's deletion. Unless the editor provides a proper reason to delete these two entries, that falls within WP guidelines, the deletion is not appropriate, much as the approach taken was somewhat lacking it itself. --2603:7000:2143:8500:1544:2C08:6338:A34A (talk) 07:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Inclusionism is a belief that content like The Mays and Oxford University L'Chaim Society should exist somewhere in Wikipedia: it is not a commitment to the content existing in any particular place, and it is emphatically not a commitment to including every article in every conceivable navigation template. Such templates are always prone to bloat, and therefore decisions on what to include have to be made. In the official sections this is usually straightforward, but sections such as "sport" and "student life" require judgements to be made. If you think that a poorly sourced article about an Oxbridge (not Oxford) literary magazine, and an article about a defunct student society, are really strong candidates for inclusion then do feel free to make a case. I don't, which is why I trimmed them out. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)