Talk:University of Manchester

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portal This article is part of WikiProject Universities, an attempt to standardise coverage of universities and colleges. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

	North West England Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greater Manchester , a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Greater Manchester-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography . If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments)
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance within the Greater Manchester WikiProject.

Contents 1 Miscellaneous 2 Contact theatre 3 Massive attack of POV 4 Definite Article 5 The largest single site University in the UK - not! 6 Strength and standing 7 THE university of manchester 8 movement 9 Famous old boys 10 section 11 Famous academic staff and alumni 12 University ratings 13 School of Informatics 14 North and South Campus terminology 15 Proposal to merge articles 16 Clubs and Societies 17 Famous people 18 I would just like to point out 19 Fair use rationale for Image:Manchester University Crest.jpg 20 Category:University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology 21 Merge of Xxi club 22 Tabley House 23 Sale of assets 24 Logo 25 Proposal to split the History section 26 Reputation section 27 Endowment

[edit] Miscellaneous

I have cleaned this article up so it looks like something approaching an encyclopaedia article. It still needs some work, but it's better than it was. It appears that it was originally copied verbatim from [1]. I have contacted the owner for permission; if he refuses I'll revert to an older version. —Wereon 19:15, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Do any Latin-speakers have a translation for the University motto, Arduus ad solem?

I asked the PR dept at U of M about the logo, and they have now inserted the current moto. They will also provide the approved translation in due course. Billlion 09:46, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It means striving towards the sun - P.Lai

Thanks, but that was the old Victoria University of Manchester logo. The new one is "Cognitio, sapientia, hvmanitas" and a Translaton is given .Billlion 21:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

---

What's the section about the famous figures in Science on the bottom of this article for? If it's because there's a hall of fame at Manchester (I've never heard of it and I'm a student there) then that should go in a seperate article, if it even deserves to be in the Wikipedia.

(I think it was there because they're all either former alumni or staff of the university, it's on the Victoria University page now, but I think it needs some cleaning-up).

---

I've slightly rewritten the introduction. I appreciate that the page is somewhat incomplete still, I shall add some more stuff when I have time. What I'm planning is something along the lines of: an 'About' section with a slightly more indepth overview of the the university, current research etc; then a 'History' - with a brief summary, then links to Victoria and UMIST pages for further details; 'Campus' - description of campuses, links to halls, subsections about notable buildings - Jodrell Bank and John Rylands, etc.; then perhaps a brief note about 'famous alumni', with a link to a more detailed alumni list. I shall also add a box (as for Cambridge, Harvard, etc) with a brief summary of facts about the university. If anyone has any good pictures of some of the more impressive university buildings and the John Ryland library to add to this page that would be good.--Iceaxejuggler 13:39, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

The table on this page has some trouble with my browser/skin (Firefox 0.9.3, Cologne Blue); the text is overlapping the right edge of the table and 'bleeding' onto the background. Not sure why. Radagast 14:05, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Text bleeds to the right on konqueror 3.2.0 too. Must be a problem with the template rather than this instance? Billlion 15:36, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Contact theatre

This sounds like an advertismesnt. Can some one who knows this theatre write something encyclopedic please. There is also a stub for the theatre that says less than here. Does not seem in place in this article Billlion 20:31, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Massive attack of POV

User:130.88.177.15 seems to have a campaign of posting large amounts of propaganda about the bright future of this institution from the University's web site. When this settles down can someone please revert it, or extract anything suitably encylopedica from this gush of optimitic rhetoric? Billlion 22:11, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have deleted the gush about the University's future. Nearly all university leaders say similar such nonsense and this isn't very encyclopedic. In any case there is already a reference in the introduction: "One of the stated ambitions of the newly combined university is to 'establish it by 2015 among the 25 strongest research universities in the world on commonly accepted criteria of research excellence and performance'" and a link to the strategy for those interested.--Iceaxejuggler 00:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am in two minds about this now. Direct quotes from Alan Gilbert are at least clearly POV. I think the thing that needs to be expressed is that the motivation for merger was to haul ourselves up the league tables rather than save money on efficiency savings. I had a go at editing the straight propaganda a bit, and I feel a bit more could be included. Its hard to be objective as those close enough to the university to know are likely to be biased. Billlion 08:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I moved some direct quotes by Alan Gilbert to his own page. Although that page seems a shade on the hostile side of neutral.Billlion 13:38, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Has the PR department been at work here? Although most of it's undoubtedly true, its tone is too promotional. The article needs to be more encyclopedic, i.e. more objective... Cal T 22:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

As far as I know the official name of the university is "The University of Manchester" and not "University of Manchester". Should the title of the article be modified to reflect this? I have not edited anything before in Wikipedia, so I am unsure of what should be done. --NavarroJ 08:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well yes in a way. See for example University of Manchester Act 2004, but the define article in this act is also applied to The Victoria University of Manchester and The University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. And it is wikipedia policy to avoid The in article titles. I suspect many universitys have The in their Royal Charter, but in this case the University's PR people are trying to push the use of "The" as a branding issue. My suggestion is leave the The out Billlion 20:06, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Definite Article

It is my understanding that the University's policy is that its name shall be "The University of Manchester", with a capital T in "The". Is there any reason why I shouldn't move the article from University of Manchester to The University of Manchester? --Stemonitis 12:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I can't see why not. But remember to make the University of Manchester page redirect to the new one. David 20:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Done --Stemonitis 12:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is not to use the definite article (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name)#Universities), so I've moved it back. - Green Tentacle 18:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The largest single site University in the UK - not!

The article begins (began) with a claim to be the largest single site University, yet further down the page, it describes the University as being split between the old UMIST site, the old VMU site and "a number of other sites". The Open University has more students, Warwick University probably has a bigger single site (mostly green, but so what?). The University of London also has more students, though one could argue that the federation is very loose. But MU's claims need to be substantiated.

The former UMIST and VUM sites are very close, certainly closer than Gibbet Hill or Westwood sites at Warwick are to their main campus. In fact the two Universities overlapped for example at the School of Management, and some shared departments and facilities before merger. However the claim from the University of Manchester's publicity is that it is larger in terms of having more full time students that any other UK University, apart from the "University of London", which of course is only a "single university" in name. UCL, Imperial, KCL etc being fiercly independent. The claim is really "the largest number of full time students if you dont count University of London as one unit" Billlion 07:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Here are some student numbers quoted from Wikipedia.

• University of London total 115,000, eg UCL 3,800, Imperial 10,731
• Open University 180,000
• University of Manchester 35,546
• Manchester Metropolitan around 20,000 full time and 10,000 part time
• Leeds 31,500
• Oxford 17,000
• Warwick 17,904

University of Leeds has 7,228 places.

I can't see any other British university larger than Manchester. Open University doesn't count as it's not a conventional university and the University of London is a lose collection of London based unis. David 19:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Although the University of Manchester is often described as on two sites, this is purely a legacy from when the University's were seperate entities. The campus although clustered in two distinct areas (Oxford Road and Sackville Street) are linked together by a number of buildings along Oxford Road and Upper Brook Street, including a number of new building under construction, such as the Manchester Interdisciplinary Biocentre, and the AMPPS Building 23:24, 15/08/2005

[edit] Strength and standing

This could do with some sort of comment upon the university's current academic strength and it's standing compared with other universities in the UK. I'm not in a position to do this, but the article is lacking something like that.

Very hard to do in an encylopedic and objective way. There are league tables of course but they are all flawed. Please add comments to bottom of Talk pages and sign using three tildes. Billlion 18:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] THE university of manchester

its not 'university of manchester', but 'the university of manchester' i moved this page and added redirects, but its been moved back and renamed.? why? Rog 12:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

When did you do that, and what username were you using at the time? As far as I can tell, the page hasn't been moved for quite some time. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, i looked at that actually and couldn't see it either- think i did it as a guest? i guess it must have been about october/nov?. i don't come here that often.. the other thing i looked at after posting the above is that all the other uni's - so perhaps everything on wiki has the 'the' missing. i don't believe it should, i think it sounds disjointed and it is part of the actual name. but you know, its sometimes worth bowing under the populus pressure eh.Rog 20:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

da da:

"Definite Article

It is my understanding that the University's policy is that its name shall be "The University of Manchester", with a capital T in "The". Is there any reason why I shouldn't move the article from University of Manchester to The University of Manchester? --Stemonitis 12:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC) I can't see why not. But remember to make the University of Manchester page redirect to the new one. David 20:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Done --Stemonitis 12:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is not to use the definate article (see Wikipedia,Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name)Universities), so I've moved it back. - Green Tentacle 18:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)" Rog

Stuff the Wikipedia policy just use common sense. "The" is part of its name and so it should be used in the title of the article. By all means create a divert page but do things as they really are. Xania 18:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have much sympathy for 'stuffing' wikipedia policy(!), but more importantly here the insistance on the use of "The" in the title is a branding/marketing decision rather than a part of its legal name as defined in its charter and statutes. It's really part of the rebranding exercise after the merger and is more marketing fluff that substance, sort of the empahsise "the one and only" University of Manchester. Billlion 19:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, retract that! It is in the charter and statutes [2]

doubly embarassing as I helped write them.Billlion 20:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Somebody has just added a redirect from "UMIST" to this article. This is plainly an error, as there is a seprate article for UMIST (which can still be found under the title "University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology". I will remove the redirect (if I can work out how!) as it plainly makes it harder for people to find the UMIST article. Twilde 8 April 2007

[edit] movement

The university has adopted a policy of moving almost entirely to the Oxford Road site

source please, i've certainly not heared anyone mention this in my department (eee) and they still seem to be building some kind of new interdisaplinary research favailicy pretty close to the umist end. not to mention all the work they've been doing to the sackville street building recently (including the very posh new cetre for excelence in enquiry based learing) Plugwash 02:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

ok its a bit better now but i still think its greatly exagerrating whats going on. i know they are builing a new maths building (not sure if its going to be on the site of the one they are tearing down or not) but is there actually any expansion of facilities going on and if so what and where (i don't count tearing down a building to build a new one of similar size on its site as expansion). Plugwash 16:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The School of Mathematics is currently in foour buildings. See campus map. Lamb and Newmann (89 an 88 on th map) buildings are temporary buildings either side of Booth Street East (on the "former UMIST" side of "former VUM" campus), while MSS Building (21) Ferranti Building (20) are on the former UMIST capmus. The new building (Called "AMPS" for the moment) has already been started ( pictures )and is located next to the west of Schuster Physics building (54) on what is indicated as "Car Park C" on the map. The site of the former maths tower is going to be a new student oriented complex with enormous lecture theatres as well as student support services. The recently completed Manchester Interdisciplinary Biocentre (16 on the map) was commisioned by UMIST just before the Project Unity talks began, but nevertheless can be counted as expansion on the former UMIST site. One reason that the University tries to avoid talking of North and South Campus as distinct is because it bolsters its PR claim to be the biggest single campus university in the UK. In fact the former campuses of UMIST and VUM overlapped anyway. UMIST's School of Management was on the Oxord Road, and the Material Sciences Department was already a joint department.Billlion 19:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok so the maths deparments moving as it consolidates, thats one new building and one pulled down so no significant change there! (there may be depending on what replaces the old maths tower ofc is that planned in any way?) is there any other movement that could substatiate that paragraph or should i just rip it completely.

As I said the old maths tower site is to be used mainly for big lecture theatres and student facilities. I can't give an externally available reference for that yet. But as there are no immediate plans and only speculation on any of the buildings on the former UMIST site being sold off. Best to delete, and wait until plans are actually announced.Billlion 20:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

and what exactly do you mean by tempory buildings? actual temporary structures? locations that are normally used for something else? buildings rented from outside? Plugwash 03:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Lamb and Newman are two-story prefabricated buildings without foundations, they are temorary in the sense that they are will be moved and used for some other purpose when the AMPS project is complete. A picture makes it clear Lamb building, Newman building. [[User:Billlion

|Billlion]] 20:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The new project on the old maths tower site is provisionally called the SCAN building see eg [3] (word doc). [4]

Billlion 13:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC) S: I'm confused - not sure I am doing - save some for me!

[edit] Famous old boys

As I understand it, quite a few famous people from 'Manchester University' have gone on to be succesful and from memory (OK just checked all the articles and they all state Univ of M except Zoe Ball so I'd be grateful for confirmation there), these include Ben Elton, Rik Mayall, Adrian Edmonson, Steve Coogan, and Zoe Ball and Euros Lyn. Can anyone confirm that these people attended the university, and if so, should there be an additional section at the foot of the article to include these people? DavidFarmbrough 11:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well most of those should be changed to point to victoria university of manchester (which was widely known as the university of manchester before the merger). The university described here was only formed in 2004 so i doubt it has many highly sucessfull graduates yet! Plugwash 12:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] section

the following was in the article Whitworth Park:

Whitworth Park is Manchester University's largest hall of residence with over 1000 residents, located on Oxford Road, part of the 'City Campus'. It is in a central location on the University of Manchester campus, close to sports centre, libraries and Students Union. It comprises of eight low-rise houses containing one to three storey flats for groups of seven, eight or nine students. Accommodation is in single study bedrooms, with shared kitchen, lounge and bathroom in each flat.

Grove House houses the administrative and social centre of the community. Facilities include two squash courts, launderette, bar, gym and large dance hall. Whitworth Park has an Active Residents Association. Postgraduate students are housed in parts of Leamington and in Acomb. Acomb consists of twelve self-contained flats with 7 or 8 study bedrooms sharing kitchen, lounge, three showers and toilets.

I redirrected the article to here, and this can be incorporated into the text. Jon513 18:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, Whitworth Park is not the biggest of the halls of residence. Oak house is the biggest followed very closely by Owens Park 84.69.141.188 16:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Famous academic staff and alumni

This section breaks up the flow of the page and seems just to be a list. Wouldn't it be better at the end of the article or as a separate page altogether?Alex 11:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Also the category Category:People associated with the University of Manchester and its various sub-categories need to be populated and sorted, particularly to ensure that pre 2004 alumni are listed by component institute (and actually linking there). Timrollpickering 02:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The table of research incomes of leading UK Universities didn't really seem to belong here, since most of the information it contains doesn't really pertain directly to the University of Manchester. I've retained the figure for Manchester and the observation that it is the fifth largest in the UK, as a sentence in the section on "The present". Cambyses 09:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 22:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] School of Informatics

User:mholland wrote on my talk

Hi there. Category:Schools of Informatics seems to have been created and populated by User:Michael Fourman, but placing University of Manchester looks like good categorisation to me. The category page explains that it's for Universities which contain a school of informatics. And UoM is a member of Category:Nursing schools in the United Kingdom too. Would you reconsider uncat'ing it? (Ignore me if Manchester doesn't have such a department at all!) — mholland 15:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I take your point. First of all UoM used to have a School of Informatics. It was formed from the Department of Computation at UMIST after merger but has since been absorbed in to other schools. Secondly I would say the category is wrongly named, but that issue does not matter much here. Billlion 15:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Thank you for clarifying. — mholland 15:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North and South Campus terminology

I have reverted an edit that removed the terms North and South Campus, on the grounds of the terms as not being 'official'. What exactly is the definition of 'official' in this context? The terms seem to be used in various places, and documents on the university website, as a site search or Google site search will reveal. Surely this, and their use amongst students and staff gives the terms some de-facto legitimacy, and at least a justification for their inclusion in the article. I think they ought to be included, though explain their 'semi-official' status by all means. -- Fursday 14:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

As it says above under "The largest single site University in the UK" there is not really much of a gap. Actually the official policy just after merger was that the terms "vicinity of Sackville St " and "vicinity of Oxford Road" would be used an no official documents would say North and South Campus, perhaps to help the claim to be the largest single site university and avoid any confusion about the two parts being distinct campuses. The map [5] shows fairly well that the gap caused by the Mancunian way is pretty small, but there is a kind of waist separating the two parts. In any case I agree that the terminology is used informally. However I do not think it is a useful distinction. It is not even a clear way to divide former VUM and UMIST buildings as Material Science and Oddfellows, Aquatic Centre for example were joint and the UMIST part of what is now MBS is in the thick of the mainly VUM part. Please revert your revert. Billlion 16:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the perceived usefulness or official status of the terms, they are nonetheless being used and that justifies their mention. From what I can tell, there seems to be confusion around the various disparate parts of the university as to their status as official terms, with some parts using them and others not. I have reworded the paragraph in question to this end. Fursday 17:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clubs and Societies

Shouldn't these be at University of Manchester Students' Union rather than here, as official societies are operated and administered by the Union, rather than the University itself. -- Fursday 22:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a sensible suggestion, but it was either never done or has been reverted. If people are ok with it I will expand the societies and move it to UMSU, leaving a short section and a main article link here. Billsmith453 (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No it is not sensible. Many of the clubs and societies mentioned are funded through the athletics union and are nothing to do with the Students Union, this even includes some "non-competitive sports" club like Scuba diving.Billlion (talk) 08:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't know that. Can I then restructure the section a little to explain what types of clubs societies there are, who runs them, etc. I definitely think this section is not the place for some of the stuff that is there like StudentDirect, Fuse FM and the Manchester Academy. Perhaps the best format would be to describe AU societies here, pointing out that UMSU runs other societies and providing a 'see also' link to the UMSU page. Billsmith453 (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me.Billlion (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Famous people

I edited out People associated with the University of Manchester from the section in Victoria University of Manchester. But then found it was essentially a subset and not as good as the section in this article. As this article is too long already, how about move most of that section to People associated with the University of Manchester, and just leave a few really famous people, eg Nobel prize winners and such like? Billlion 09:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article too long? And why should the section with the famous alumni be put into another article? Manchester is one of just a handful universities in the UK that can claim to have a wide and unique range of famous alumni, some of them were pioneers in their fields, received Nobel Prizes or are head of states. The institution has any reason to be proud of these people and can afford to put it into the main article. So please, before making such a substantional move there should be a general agreement about that. This is the reason why I undo your last changes. Miriam234 11:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Billlion, a sensible move. -- Fursday 13:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I also think that the list here is becoming rather unmanageable. The page is currently 46kB long, and the notables are ripe for forking. I would support reducing the Famous academic staff and alumni section to a prose summary, linked to the main article on notables. I would also like to see People associated with the University of Manchester divided by UMIST/VUM/UoM, so it could be appropriately linked to from the other two articles as well. — mholland (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is the list becoming unmanageable? The reader does not need to jump from one article to another. the list is at the end of the article, not in the middle, and does hence not disturb the "text flow". The reader can either stop reading where the NHS hospital section ends or can continue and see the list of people that are associated with the university. Other Russel Group universities such as Birmingham, Warwick or Southampton also mention notable alumni and even Vice-Chancellors; the articles about oxford, cambridge and LSE reach a similar lenght as the one of Manchester.

Regarding your second idea, many of the people on the list have in fact studied or worked at both institutions, and the newly established UofM can hardly have famous alumni yet. Miriam234 15:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The list is perhaps not unmanageable, but it is certainly unmanaged. If I were looking to prune this article aggressively, I'd remove most of the text following the names - that's what the biographical articles themselves are for. None of the articles you mentioned (Oxford, Cambridge, LSE) has a similar list. In fact, the section at LSE is an exemplar of the sort of thing I'd like to see here.

There's no harm done to any of the encyclopedic content by forking and hyperlinking material, but there are compelling technical and practical reasons why a single page should not be allowed to grow too long. — mholland (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The text behind the names could be indeed shortened but on the other hand it shows their connection with the university and what (pioneering) research they have done. In any case, I assume that the alumni list has reached its full lenght by now and hence suggest to leave it as it is. In my view the current version article is well-structured and still includes a lot of interesting information and facts about the university without having a "promotional tone" or meaningless sentences. Miriam234 00:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we have a majority if not a consensus. I will reinstate my stub section on famous people, and then we can continue developing that with a few highlights and any further people are added to the new article People associated with the University of Manchester summary of argument:-

• Article is too long, see WP:Article size. The article is 46.5 kB and the maximum size is 32k. If anyone does not agree with don't cutting this section they need to propose what to cut instead.
• The list will continue to grow anyway, two more names were added during this debate and there are clearly missing sub headings.
• Exemplar University articles have only a brief summary section like the one I started (but was deleted by Miriam234). Obviously this needs to be expanded and there will be a debate about who to include. Roughly the guideline is Nobel prize or extremely well know outside their own field. Billlion 06:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"I think we have a majority if not a consensus." - we are in the middle of the debate, I would like to discuss the points you mentioned:

The article is indeed long, but its not longer than other university articles (see other Russell group members or universities in the US). What difference does it make to have two 24 kB or one 46,5 kB article? Having the names in one article doesnt make it necessary to jump from one article to another, and I assume that the list of names have almost reached its full lenght. What we can do is shortening the list, for instance, "the arts"-section, but the names in the chemistry and physics section are mainly pioneers in their fields and therefore deserve to be mentioned (zB John Dalton, who did not receive a Nobel Prize, but still achieved a lot more than most others). discussing who is worth to be mentioned and who not isn't might be ridiculous. Though we can leave out the descriptions for the physicists. Furthermore, I doubt that the list will grow much longer and I believe that the way it is now, is fine, readable and manageable. I would appreciate if you could reply to the postings before moving half of the article to another (some sort of hidden) site. Miriam234 12:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw, before we continue to change anything, we should at first merge or complete following lists:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_associated_with_the_University_of_Manchester
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_associated_with_the_Victoria_University_of_Manchester
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_associated_with_the_University_of_Manchester_Institute_of_Science_and_Technology
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Alumni_of_the_University_of_Manchester
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Alumni_of_the_Victoria_University_of_Manchester
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Alumni_of_the_University_of_Manchester_Institute_of_Science_and_Technology
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Academics_of_the_Victoria_University_of_Manchester
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Academics_of_the_University_of_Manchester
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Academics_of_the_University_of_Manchester_Institute_of_Science_and_Technology

I think that the list will obviously continue to grow, because research continues at Manchester, and because there are plenty of missing biographies for past academics who might populate this list. It is by no means at its full length. I also think that selectively pruning figures from the arts from this list would be POV, and something that wouldn't be countenanced on a forked list. My opinions on forking or otherwise aren't very strongly held, because it shouldn't make any difference to the encyclopedic content (it just seems like a natural split to me). Those categories, on the other hand, I would very much like to keep separate. Merging them would not be helpful categorisation. — mholland (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course the cats will continue to grow. There might be a case for merging them in the long term, as i wonder if after a few years no-one will be that interested in if someone was at VUM or UMIST. At the moment though people do seem to care about it so I suggest we keep most of these Cats. Billlion 06:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And as for "I assume lists have reached full length", no, they are certainly growing. I think even the second derivative is positive. Billlion 06:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont think its right to delete what others have written. Billion did not only delete all the names but also what "Umair2300" has added as an alternative. Why? Can you give me a reason why the text should just be as you might like it. Seriously, the (impressive) list of famous alumni stretches the article a bit, i agree, but it also demonstrates Manchester's contributions to science and -more important- it was a motivational factor since quite a few joined and added some names. I guess that it made some passive wikipedia readers to active wikipedians (and even i, who is not a 'traditional' user, might be interested in the additions that were made). Thats the reason for putting the list back on. anyway, its getting late and im tired. enjoy yourself ps: Manchester Uni(ted) rulez TheDanNr9

I agree that the list should not be deleted, and it hasn't been. It is at People associated with the University of Manchester. I would ask that for simplicity's sake, that only one copy of the list should be in play at any time: at the moment, there is a majority opinion (if not a consensus) for the list to be separate. If editors would like to discuss bringing the material back into this page, I would welcome a merge proposal. — mholland (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:SS Should now be vital reading for everybody who is involved in this section now. -- Fursday 19:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't seen that. Is there some way we can tag the section to discourage people from adding people to that rather than the sub article? Billlion 16:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I would just like to point out

I would just like to point out; "I" posted a warning on this page, relating to the activities of the University; & its socio-political make-up. The use of psychological testing; in the open community of North-West England, has gone on for over 7 years now; & has now reached a "Group Delusional Level", within the academic make-up of the area. In specific; on bank holiday weekend "I" made 2 emergency calls to the "Home Office"; relating to the Universities use of paid; psychological testers; & "I", "Simon Jon W", coined a phrase, especially for them; "Psychological Kamakasi's". In short; for over 7 years; University "Kids", have been deliberately winding people up; & testing for a reaction. I do realise that the majority of Europe, has been of a Group Delusional; Paranoid, Socio-Economic Dynamic; ever since Dianna died. However; this does not make things better. I do hope; nothing like this was at fault, in the Virginnia Tech shootings; for that would make the shooter a victim also; a victim of rush to judgement; & a victim of Nazi academics; that have yet again, come back after 60 years, to haunt the world in the name of totalitarianism. After all; you can build; one hell of a network, over 50 years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.150.92.153 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Manchester University Crest.jpg

Image:Manchester University Crest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the rational was already there. Please read Wikipedia:Logos Billlion 18:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Using the crest as an university's logo for this article requires an explanation or rationale? This sounds absolutely ridiculous given that it's already in line with the 'Fair Use Guidelines' and the crest is undoubtedly a university logo.TheDanNr9 16:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The message comes from a bot, and a bot with a fairly long list of complaints. So, I wouldn't take it too seriously! Coldmachine^Talk 16:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: looks like the image got tagged because it was given the logo copyright tag but didn't have a subsequent fair use rationale: I've just added one. Coldmachine^Talk 16:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology

I have (re-)nominated the Category:University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology for deletion; please see my reasons, and leave comments, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 6#Category:University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology. Thanks. Mike Peel 18:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge of Xxi club

I've proposed that the content at Xxi club be merged into the Clubs and Societies section of this article. The XXI Club doesn't seem to have enough Notability to stand on its own as a separate article. Comments? - Fordan (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tabley House

This property should not be listed under "Campus and facilities". T.H. is just a piece of real estate, owned by the university, but not used for teaching or any other academic-related activity. --Jotel 07:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Done --Jotel 12:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sale of assets

I deleted the sentence about the defecit triggering sale fo assets. Despite the the headline in MEN [6] the sale of various pieces of real estate was in the Project Unity plan to fund the building programme, and is not related to the defecit in revinue that triggered staffing cuts. To quote teh article:

But a spokesperson said: "It's important to make clear that the disposal of buildings is not a recent decision and was envis-aged in the original merger plans developed in 2003-2004.

"To date, £388.5m has been spent on new buildings across campus. The disposal of buildings is a consequence of these new buildings coming on stream, and the funds from these disposals are principally to fund this capital programme."

And it is not as if Fairbairn is a key partof the university, it is an office building across the road from former UMIST capmus. Of course, if the assets were been sold hasily for less than their value one could make that case, but I have not seen any claim that that is the case. Billlion 05:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I moved the information elsewhere, Any connection between the sale and the deficit is now left to the reader's discretion. --Jotel 10:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

Image:University of Manchester Est1824 logo.gif got deleted as it was orphaned but had a fair use rational, then the big version was deleted because it had no fair use rationale! This is all getting a bit sill. 06:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to split the History section

As it stands now, this section is of the 'all in one' variety. Apart from the actual history, nearly a half of the text is about present-day finances, rankings, glorious plans and academic (or is it administrative ?) structure.
I suggest the copy starting from "The newly merged University of Manchester" be moved to another section, called for example 'University today'. This name is simply the best I can think of, any other suggestions are welcome.
Comments, anybody?? --Jotel 10:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Also (in a separate edit), removed the duplication of the ranking information, now all in the new section. --Jotel 13:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reputation section

I just reverted the deletion of this section. I am not sure myself about the need for this section and table, and if there is a need for it I'm not sure what we can reliably say about the reputation for which we can find verifiable sources. The section is about league table position at the moment. This has something vaguely to do with reputation but is not a direct measure of it. In any case the reason I reverted is that the league table positions are notable, and they have been moved here from other sections. I am certainly not happy with this information being deleted. Billlion 16:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I already commented why i believe there is no necessity to add an "academic reputation section": academic reputation is not necessarily measured through rankings, especially when they vary so significantly and from one subject to the next. furthermore there are dozens of rankings - each valuing different measurements. for instance, the times guide, one of the major rankings, is heavily influenced by student satisfaction surveys: not only do some unis (oxford, cambridge, etc.) not even take part in those surveys, they are simply not telling anything about academic reputation. search in google and see how many rankings exist; IMHO there are useless for evaluating academic reputation. instead an academic institution might better demontrate its quality through its success in past and current research. Manchester has apparently 23 nobel prize laureates among its alumni, and brought out many more pioneers and inventions. these should be mentioned, rather than statistical nonsense and vague tables. Youractor nov 4th —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youractor (talk • contribs) 18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please engage in discusion rather than just reverting (and note you can use four tildes to sign and date a comment automatically). My point was at the very least instead of simply deleting the section some of the ranking information should be added to the article. For example the information on the change in the score Academic Ranking of World Universities is mentioned in the Alan Gilbert article. Gilbert has made it clear that such measures (which of course are much simpler than local rankings and are weighted heavily on number of Nobel Prize winners and Fields Medalists) are expected to improve in line with the 2015 agenda. I agree that newspaper rankings are a poor indicatior of a University's reputation, but that is a POV. However not taht some people (especially prospective UK undergraduates) do pay some attention to them so it does have some influence on the reputation, or at least a Univesity's ability to recruit good undergrads.Billlion 21:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually,i just noticed that all the info is currently (back?) in the section University_of_Manchester#University_today,Billlion 21:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I created the academic reputation to bring it in line with other university articles. I included a table of the newspaper rankings. As very often as university articles on wikipedia just quote their best position in the rankings. I agree that the rankings are not a way of measure an academic reputation. Could we re-insert the table on the section heading of Newspaper rankings?--Benjaminevans82 23:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to now just be a section squashed into 'the university today' mentioning the THES ranking (which incidentally is our best ranking). If no-one objects I'll (re)make a proper objective section on rankings and academic reputation. I quite like the table format in university of bristol so I think I'll nick that. Billsmith453 (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As you may read in the posting of "Youractor", there are some concerns about ranking tables. I agree with Billlion regarding the point that they have only vaguely to do with reputation but is not a direct measure of it. Moreover there are changing quickly, the measures vary from one ranking to another. In my view, rankings do not even need to be considered in an encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia. Maybe, but just maybe the Academic Ranking of World Universities and perhaps also the THES ranking could be mentioned given that Gilbert has distinctly referred to them many times in his 2015 strategy plan, however, this might still be controversial among other users. Whether the various rankings are mentioned or not, they shouldnt stand alone but rather be integrated into the text, i.e. no separate section 2hiyup2 (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand some of the concerns but I think the use of rankings in a POV way is a problem if we are selective about which ones we use. Furthermore I'm not sure what the general problem with them is, i would say they have a significant influence on prospective university graduates and taken as a whole they do fairly accurately represent perceptions of the university amongst people generally. My preference would be for a section which discussed the general academic standing of the university and also gave a tabled list of as many rankings as are available. That should give a fair overview without bias and cuts out any problems of differing standards, change over time etc. Looking at youractors comments basically emphasises what I think, he suggests listing past nobel laureates (which makes us look good)in favour of the rankings(which don't so much), it all just looks very biased to me. Billsmith453 (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, University of Glasgow, Oxford, Cambridge and UCL all have a seperate reputation section with three of those having a table of ranking results and as far as I can see they're the only 4 UK university pages to have GA status. Soon as I have time I'm making a new section. Billsmith453 (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree and as 2hiyup2 said above, I believe that rankings, especially due to its diversity in terms of measures, are a weak criterion to compare institutions. The only exception I would make concerns the Research Assessment Exercise results as they reflect the income that the faculties and schools receive from public funding (HEFCE, etc).

Manc photographer (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I get that rankings are weak measures, but that only makes having just one or two of them on this page even more nonsensical. I'm suggesting a table which displays several in a NPOV way, surely that's better than the status quo. And again I'd point to the four articles I mentioned, if they represent good examples then why are we chosing a different system (which just happens to be the one that makes the University look best). The analogy I would pick as an example is the Wiki page on poverty, which refers to GDP per capita. It's a rubbish measure of poverty but it's still relevant and should be included, ditto with the rankings. Billsmith453 (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that the way it is written now is just fine. IMHO there is no need for a separate section or even tables.Manc photographer (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, it's there in the history now if people change their minds. Billsmith453 (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Billsmith453, thank you very much for your understanding and your contributions Manc photographer (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Endowment

Where exactly is the source which confirms the endowment figure for 2007 of £640 million? Seems a bit high to me, compared to other universities such as Durham, Birmingham, Surrey etc.. Asdfasdf1231234 (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The Sutton Trust [7] gave a table n 2003 and that says £90m for Manchester. Now that was pre-merger but ts still a big jump. 06:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The annual income is [8] £637m, maybe that is what was meant? In any case I will simply remove the figure for the moment as we do not know. Billlion (talk) 10:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually there are figures in the published accounts [9] for 2007. On page 16 it looks like £146m is the figure we want? I'll put that in for the momentBilllion (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Billlion,

I just took a look at the Manchester accounts and the number you mentioned is just said to be "endowment assets"; the total income is indeed 637million and the "new endowments minus realisations" are set to be 647million for the fiscal year ending in July 2007. I'm not expert on financial statements, but the numbers given by Sutton Trust seem to be far too low compared to the respective balance sheets or if you compare them with the endowments of similar big universities in other countries. However, I might still be wrong and please correct me if that's the caseManc photographer (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

They will certainly be low compared with US universities. Outside of Oxford and Cambridge seeking to have any significant endowment is quite a new idea in UK universities, as the Sutton trust points out. But you have to be careful what the word means, and I think in an international setting like wikipedia the most common meaning is the US sense. Remember UK universities get the vast majority of their income from the government.Billlion (talk) 08:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)