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)

There is I would submit no bloat in the template under discussion. Furthermore, the Gliding Club, and its two gliders, appears to be perhaps the most promising candidate for deletion (both from the template as well as from the project), yet was left untouched. There is no WP guideline of which I am aware that supports this editor's judgement as to deleting that which he would like to delete - it is a personal viewpoint, unsupported by wp guidelines, as best I can tell. These two articles are at the moment (as they have wp articles) presumptively notable. If one thinks that the magazine is not notable, one can prod it, or AfD it. That is the proper course. As to the society, the fact that it is now not operating does not detract at all from its notability - we do not for example say, x is no longer notable because they are dead or because they are not operating. That, again, is unsupported by - and contrary to in fact - the wp approach. The society was obviously highly covered by RSs at the time of its height, and quite notable. We cover all the dead [List of vice-chancellors of the University of Oxford]] in the template. As is usual. Templates are not limited to the living, or active. Nor is any editor's contrary view sufficient to support an argument that they should be - and if they were, we would delete all such entries from this and similar templates, begininning with former vice chancellors. As to the society, given its clear notability and large size and quality of speakers and members, I don't think there is much of an argument. 2603:7000:2143:8500:1544:2C08:6338:A34A (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The gliding club is now at AfD. If deleted, it should free up room for one of these. 2603:7000:2143:8500:39D6:DE69:AE5D:177E (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

You are confusing articles and Wikipedia:Navigation templates. If you have an argument for why a defunct society is a priority for inclusion here please make it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I already supplied you with a fulsome argument above. You've not responded in kind. Furthermore, the template includes List of fictional University of Oxford people - which of course doesn't include people who are dead but people who never lived. The template includes lists of mostly dead people, in List of chancellors of the University of Oxford, and List of vice-chancellors of the University of Oxford.

You've made up a rule that you have failed to provide any support for in wp guidelines. WP doesn't work that way. Show me something in the guideline.

And please recognize that individual editors do not "own" articles or templates. And are not free to delete material based on "I have a personal view that I made up - this notable person or organization must still be alive or functioning, no matter that it is notable and fits our criteria as an Oxford person or entity." Not. Cricket. 2603:7000:2143:8500:20B8:E841:C518:EB06 (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)