Talk:Ancient universities of Scotland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Scotland
 Ancient universities of Scotland is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Scotland Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Scotland To-do:

Contents

[edit] Dundee

I'm unclear why Dundee is on the page... if it is ancient, then it should be in the list at the top. If it is not, then it shouldn't be on the page at all?

It is certainly odd for this university (alone) to have a major heading at the top of the content of the page?

Should it be in the list, or not? - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tim bates (talk • contribs) 14:55, 27 April 2006.

Of course it should be included - it shares every characteristic of an ancient and is a breakaway university from an ancient which one could say continues that traditions. It was also a founding member of the former Scottish Ancients association. I don't think it should go on the list at the top unless it is with some sort of special qualification since obviously it has not been chartered for the several centuries of the others - but it would be completely idiotic not to mention this major peculiarity amongst this group of universities.
To clarify though, Dundee isn't commonly referred to an ancient (although it does occasionally happen and there was quite an argument about it on the UoD discussion page) but will usually be included when discussing ancients in any sort of way. --Breadandcheese 04:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your comment that it is odd to be included. Dundee is included precisely because it is odd. It's a breakaway from St. Andrews making it govern by the Universities (Scotland) Act 1896. It is generally included in discussion of ancients because a lot of what distinguish ancients from others applies to Dundee as well. -- KTC 13:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to add that Dundee was also founded via an order in council as opposed to an act of parliament as is usual with modern universities. In addition everything that defines an ancient as an ancient (aside from age) is as a result of being goverened under the univerties scotland act. (Some might even say that being goverened under that particular act IS what defines an ancient) Dundee being goverened under the act therefore shares all the defining features. Dundee is an ancient in all defining features but age. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.36.37.173 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 30 April 2006.

I think what is odd is that it mentions the Law School individually in the Dundee section. The UofD took quite a few noteworthy departments away from St Andrews: dentistry, the Medical School (although St Andrews created a new one I believe they have to run it in Manchester for half of the degree as a result of having no hospital facilities to hand etc) and so forth. I'm not saying it should be removed, I'm just saying that it is odd to pick it out particularly for inclusion. --Breadandcheese 14:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statutory requirement

I've put a note on the discussion page about Students' Representative Council (Scotland), but just in case somebody here knows about this: this article states that SRCs are required by statute. Is this still, precisely, the case? Aberdeen SA — according to the Constitution posted on its website, here — has changed from having an SRC to a "Students' Association Council". – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 23:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The statutory name remains the SRC - but there's no particular legal obligation on them to always label the the body such. I imagine anything legal would maintain the statutory name.--Breadandcheese 07:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I'd say that this page adds very little to the coverage at ancient university and could be merged with no real losses. --Breadandcheese 06:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I object to your unilateral redirect. If you wish to redirect please follow the correct consultation procedure. --Mais oui! 10:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
As WP:MM makes absolutely clear "to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument.". The procedure you refer to does not exist - and in fact, I did open it up to consultation at the time, tagging the pages for a long period of time (in fact, I believe it was you who took the tags down) - there were no submissions. Merging is a normal editorial action that "does not need to be proposed and processed".As a result of the invalidity of the objection, I have reverted it back under the 'be bold' policy (again found in WP:MM).
I should make clear that if you want to make a substantive objection to the merge then that is fine and I will of course engage in the usual dispute resolution procedure. However at present there seems to be no real reason not to revert here and a world of reasons to do so in order to improve Wikipedia. I do not feel I am being overzealous here when the only objection to what I believe is an eminently sensible change seems to be grounded in ignorance of Wikipedia policy. --Breadandcheese 11:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why delete my additions?

I thought the article would benefit from the further detail I added. Is there a consensus against adding the detail I did? - if so, no problem, but I wouldn't like something to be deleted if only one editor feels that way! Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can create a viable page here, with more information than would be appropriate at the ancient university article, then I will support the page. As it stands, after the revert, I don't and believe it should be merged.
But yes, I can't see how there is any consensus in favour of you not adding information; in fact, it seems rather contrary to good sense. So I'd say go ahead and re-revert. Although equally remember you are covering a thin line in terms of usefulness here: there must be some unique content which is better covered in this page than in the ancient university page, or indeed at the pages of universities themselves. If none arises, then you'll probably find the article quickly merged into others. --Breadandcheese (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is clear:

--Mais oui! (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask exactly what you think the consensus is? From that, I gather (being one of the chief architects of that consensus), that it should redirect as it presented no different information to the ancient university article. I don't see how you can use that as a justification to retain the article in the form it presently finds itself without redirecting, yet exclude new edits...--Breadandcheese (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)