Talk:University College London
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives |
| Archive 1 |
[edit] "London University" or "University of London"?
In the history section it states that when it was founded it was founded under the name "University of London", are you sure this is correct? I have a book in front of me that states and I quote
Gradually a group of liberal politicians and wealthy merchants came together and in 1826 established the new London University which was to provide an education in "Mathematical and Physical Science, Classics and Medicine"... It was in the days preceding the establishment of London University that De Morgan first met Frend and was introduced to his family...
– page 81 of A History of Mathematics Education in England by A.G. Howson (1982)
Having re-read a few pages on I have found a reference to the creation of the University of London, I'll put in the quote
London University was essentially the creation of Whigs and nonconformists. In order to counter its influence, a rival institution, King's College, supported by the Tories and the Established Church, opened in the Strand in October 1831. Initially, neither of the rivals was empowered to grant degrees, an unsatisfactory situation. After attempts to persuade the colleges to unite had failed, a royal charter of November 1836 created the University of London as a body with powers to examine candidates and to award degrees. To avoid confusion with this new body, the older college adopted a new name, University College. This move, which placed the examining in different hands from the teaching, was to have a great but far from beneficial effect
– page 94 of A History of Mathematics Education by A.G. Howson (1982)
Either I have misunderstood this book or there is an error somewhere. I haven't just corrected in case someone has evidence that contradicts with this, thanks, A happybunny 19:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The establishment of University College, called at first the London University...
– page 24 of Memoir Of Augustus De Morgan by Sophie Elizabeth De Morgan
I found this today while looking for something completely different so thought I would add it. In the same book however I did read it being refered to as University of London also, however it could be possible that it was also refered to as the University of London although it was officially called London University, much in the same way the University of Manchester is sometimes refered to as Manchester Univeristy. A happybunny 12:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Good question and it's possible there's no definitive answer. It is very common in the UK for universities to use both forms (for example a lot of organisations at the University of Oxford use "Oxford University" in their official title) and normally nobody ever bats an eyelid (although some recent corporate rebrandings to "Foo University" have provoked backlashes and insistences on "University of Foo"). And of course the institution founded in 1826 didn't have a charter so just what constitutes the "official" name? (University use isn't necessarily the best to go by - a lot of institutions use a variant from their charter title.)
- I can take a look through Negley Harte's history of the federal UofL to see what was being used in any of the sources quoted/shown. Timrollpickering 19:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- There is an image of wikipedia dated 1827/1828 entitled London University - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:The_London_University_by_Thomas_Hosmer_Shepherd_1827-28.JPG not sure if that helps. But at least thats two sources that state London University. LordHarris 21:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- In case you haven't guessed yet, I'm actually looking for info on Augustus De Morgan, I've just looked at the Wiki page for him
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_De_Morgan#London_University
- and it explains it quite well. If we are convinced yet that it should be London University feel free to correct it, I would do it but when it comes to writing articles I spend along time trying to word it correctly and I don't have the time right now, I am still open to being told I am wrong however. thanks, A happybunny 22:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] GA nomination
I have made a lot of edits recently to improve and expand the article. Firstly I hav elinked most of the articles on UCL, that were within the template, actually to the UCL page. I have also created sections and linkages to other UCL things such as the union, the hosptial, filming etc (I created a new page about filming at UCL). I have added references for everything I felt needed a reference and have answered the citation requests. I have done a general tidy as well, renaming some sections as well as creating some new sub sections such as the library subsection. I have also tidied the museum/collections and the notable buildings and departments subsection. I have also made the campus networking section more concise, as it was extremely long. I have also archived the talk page. I now feel that the article is up to GA criteria and have nominated it to be reviewed.LordHarris 01:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] GA pass
The article is very well written, comprehensive, and cited properly. However, I would strongly suggest that the 'sidebar' of images be at least partially moved to the gallery at the bottom of the page-as it looks a bit intrusive. Other than that, this article deserves GA. ErleGrey 23:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- I will put some images in the gallery. Thank you for the review and the GA status. LordHarris 22:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] First non-religious college?
The opening paragraph has been amended recently to include "and the first to be founded on a non-religious basis". What does this mean? The first in England? The UK? The world? Obviously it can't mean the first in London - that would be obvious as it was the first college of all in London.
Rueful Rabbit 20:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
- I *think* it was because it was an alternative to King's College London,which at the time exclusively Christian or Protestant.(and possibly similar at Oxford University and Cambridge University.) That's what they told us at any rate! Paulbrock 22:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC) (UCL Alumnus)
- No, King's College was founded in 1829, three years after London University (as UCL was known in 1826). The only other universities in England in 1826 were Oxford and Cambridge, and debatably Durham, all of which were religious institutions. Should the phrase read "and the first to be founded in England on a non-religious basis"? Rueful Rabbit 00:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC) (UCL staff)
[edit] Famous alumni
Surely, if it's neccessary to give famous alumni in the main article Trevor Lock's noteworthiness is debateable compared to UCL's handful of Booker, not to mention one Nobel, prize-winning authors. He's a comedian who's recently had fringe success: they're authors who've been celebrated in academic and literary circles for decades. Considering he's referred to as a 'comedian' by his Wikipedia article, it's hard to see how Lock even qualifies as an 'important author'.
[edit] UCL information on Google Earth
What determines what appears in the information box when you click the little marker on UCL in Google Earth? It appears to be extracted from the Wikipedia page. How does it decide which picture to show? The current one is the rather ugly one of the Petrie Musuem, rather than a nice one of the UCL Portico. Rueful Rabbit 22:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Google Earth will include (I think) up to three images along with the article intro for any geotagged article. It will only include images from the Commons, because those are guaranteed to be available under a free licence. The Petrie Museum photo is the only one here currently on Commons, although I notice that there are other photos here eligible for moving to the Commons. — mholland (talk) 00:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Three photos of the main building
Isn't it a bit much having three of the same building? Unusual Cheese 13:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Those three photos are presenting three different pictures, Main building in general, at night and in the snow. I think they are quite fine. Niaz bd 14:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Accounts for more than 40% of the Russell Group's research funding"
This rather outlandish claim is made prominently in the second paragraph of the article. The given citation makes no such reference. Does anyone know where this came from? From common sense, it's highly unlikely that UCL alone accounts for 40% of the research funding of a group of 20 universities, which also includes Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial, KCL etc. I'm almost positive it's not true, but thought I'd post here before I removed it, in case anyone can enlighten me. Oudweg 21:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] References
Something is corrupted in the references, so that only the first few are appearing. Can someone rectify this - I dont seem to see whats wrong with the format? LordHarris 19:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done - just an incomplete reference template. — mholland (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for doing that. LordHarris 17:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] "the oldest multi-faculty constituent college"
What does this mean? Did UCL adopt faculties before KCL? --86.1.110.71 (talk) 10:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- No. Other specialist colleges in the UoL (e.g. Heythrop College) are technically considerably older than UC (albeit obviously they have not been a part of the federal system since their inception). UC is manifestly older as an institution than KCL, there's no ambiguity about that. Badgerpatrol (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- However Birkbeck is three years older than UCL and is definitely multi-faculty - its specialism is in the delivery method not the academic content. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's a fair cop, I never knew that; in fact I was never happy with that wording (it was a compromise edit [1] to satisfy a KCL propagandist ;-) which always seemed a bit clunky. Change as appropriate, Tim. Badgerpatrol (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- However Birkbeck is three years older than UCL and is definitely multi-faculty - its specialism is in the delivery method not the academic content. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Correct casual use of name
Today Lord Woolf was on Radio 4, when he mentioned his time at "University College". He did not say "University College London", "UCL", or "University Colllege", but "University College", lacking the word "London", not abbreviated to mere letters, and with the emphasis on "College" rather than on "University". I suppose "University College" might be taken to mean University College, Oxford (though this is almost ubiquitously called "Univ"). Might one understand that if the former Lord Chief Justice calls it at "University College" the other variations, "University College London", and perhaps to a greater degree "UCL", are more plebeian locutions?--Oxonian2006 (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've heard "University College" used be a few at UCL, usually longer standing academics or a few who've apparently learnt from somewhere that it's the "correct" form (I take such claims with a pinch of salt as very often it's based on personal interpretations of documents and not on the official style guide). The names of a lot of the London colleges are regularly subject to branding exercises that try to get a consistent form in place and very often provoke backlashes and people going out of their way to use a particular form in protest when previously they wouldn't have bothered. But presumably Woolf is just using a more old fashioned form that was far common in his days there (when the usual rendering for most colleges was "Name of College, London" and many often dropped "London" in casual speech). Timrollpickering (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

