Wikipedia talk:WikiProject University of Cambridge

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

University of Cambridge This page is within the scope of the University of Cambridge WikiProject, an attempt to improve articles relating to the University of Cambridge, and to standardize and extend the coverage of the University in the encyclopedia. If you would like to participate, you can help us by editing the page attached to this notice, or you could visit the project page, where you can join the project, learn more about it, see what needs to be done, or contribute to the discussion.University of CambridgeWikipedia:WikiProject University of CambridgeTemplate:WikiProject University of CambridgeUniversity of Cambridge articles

Autumn 2007 Archive

Is it possible to create a watchlist for all of the articles relating to the University? This would be useful to counter unhelpful edits (e.g. the recent vandalism of the University of Cambridge page) and perhaps to attract interested editors to join the WikiProject. A.C. Norman (talk) 10:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a DRV on the categories for Wranglers, a travesty Cantabrigians will wish to remedy. Occuli (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping this won't prove too controversial, so here goes... Every college boat club currently has an article. Unfortunately, most are completely unsourced, and many are very unencyclopedic in tone. I seriously doubt whether a lot of the clubs meet the notability requirements, whilst at the same time I am certain that a lot will.

In terms of sources, I know that the bumps results are often covered by the telegraph and the times, so reputable sources will be found which mention the clubs, but finding multiple reliable sources giving the clubs significant coverage will be harder to come by.

My purpose in raising this is to try and get some other opinions on the subject, rather than just going to AfD with some of the articles. Quantpole (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is little point using Wikipedia just for a list of bumps results (WP:NOT#STATS). Any articles on the Boat Clubs should require some element of notability generally. Connections to famous alumni may be relevant. Also, things like First and Third's involvement with their May Ball may well be relevant as well. Mrh30 (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In searching a bit more I did find this book [1] which seems to have pretty decent information about all of the boatclubs, so is a start towards addressing notability. I definately agree that the articles all need a good clean up as a start. Quantpole (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus College Boat Club (Oxford) is now a Featured Article, so anything is possible... Bencherlite^Talk 18:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment the department/faculty articles are named somewhat arbitrarily (Category:Departments of the University of Cambridge), especially where disambiguation is needed. I think it should be a high priority to get these consistent, to the benefit of readers and editors. For the fictional Department of Wikipedia Studies I can see a few alternatives:

• Department of Wikipedia Studies, University of Cambridge - I feel this is best stylistically
• Department of Wikipedia Studies, Cambridge - as used for colleges
• Department of Wikipedia Studies (University of Cambridge) - I like this because it's then possible to use the pipe trick for links, and because "University of Cambridge" isn't actually part of the department names as such
• Department of Wikipedia Studies (Cambridge)
• University of Cambridge Department of Wikipedia Studies
• Cambridge University Department of Wikipedia Studies

Obviously this would be irrelevant for some departments where disambiguation isn't needed (e.g. Faculty of Politics, Psychology, Sociology and International Studies is a pretty unique name which is a mouthful already!) or others where normal use is overwhelmingly different (e.g. Cambridge University Library, Cambridge University Botanic Garden). Thoughts? the wub "?!" 11:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally prefer 1 or 3 above, but I think perhaps some variety ought to be allowed, since the departments are somewhat disparate and arbitrary in themselves. The articles should probably follow house style where possible. Also, some pages listed, e.g. the Registrary, the Regent House and the TCM group at the Cavendish, are not departments. A.C. Norman (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't know of it, Alumni Cantabrigienses (by the logician John Venn and his son John Archibald Venn) was a multivolume list, with biographical details, of pre-1900 Cambridge alumni. It's recently been turned into a searchable web database, and I've been using Template:Venn to add references to it. I estimate there may be about 3,000 people with wikibios who are included in Venn.Dsp13 (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having tried to improve a few New Zealand college articles, I have found that there are a number of articles on residential colleges that are similar in style without much linking between them. So... I thought that having a WikiProject for residential colleges (in the non-US sense) might be useful and would be interested in finding any other editors who agree. While this would have to include very different ideas of 'college', the hope would be that the most significant articles would benefit from a talking-shop and the currently neglected ones, from the associated interest. If anybody is keen, please see the proposal --Philtweir (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article linked includes these words:- "Plume left a most elaborate will with many bequests beyond the Maldon Library. One was the founding of what has become the Plumean Professorship of Astronomy in Cambridge, which, like our Library, is still highly active to this day." Additionally there is a link to an annual lecture that gives far more information about Thomas Plume. I hope a more experienced Wiki editor than I will now update the main article, in the approved style of this project and remove the request for a citation.

The request for a citation about such an easily researched seems nonsensical in the way that is expressed, to me.Stranger on the shore (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made us a barnstar. It could be improved. Marnanel (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a page at Wikipedia:Cambridge University Wikipedia Society to coordinate Wikipedia outreach efforts towards the university. If you're a current member of the university, or lives in the proximity of Cambridge and would like to help, please sign up! Deryck C. 19:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Smith's prize is probably the university's single most famous prize and has an article cluttered with stuff on other prizes which needs clearing. But the list of recipients is a mess and incomplete. The university registry have kindly provided me with a photocopied list of every recipient of the Smith's prize since 1769 (two per year). Many of these are rather famous people. So how can I convert this into a reliable source, given that it has been directly provided by the most reliable source? Should I upload a set of scans or can I say give them to another reliable Cambridge Wikipedian to check? --BozMo talk 19:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that you have permission to reproduce, you could try uploading to Wikisource Bluap (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Good point. The document copyright is presumably UoC. --BozMo talk 14:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do notable professors of Cambridge fall within the scope of this project? By way of a for instance, I was reviewing the talk page of a previous Whewell Professor of International Law and noticed this projects banner was not on the talk page. Neither were a sampling of the other chair holders I clicked on. Should the banner be added or not? IMHO (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody replaced the original University crest with the fake version again. To be precise, it was Handsdown on 18 August.

10:32, 18 August 2012‎ Handsdown.1(talk | contribs)‎ . . (125,877 bytes) (-223)‎ . . (infobox standardised)

I love that he standardized the infobox, deleted info and added crappy stuff. The file University of Cambridge Crest.svg had been replaced with Cambridge University Crest.svg and, unfortunately, I can't find the University of Cambridge Crest.svg. This fake version was there for some years until somebody replaced it around the beginning of this year.

Can’t understand why people uploading the fake version, as there is a significant difference between this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cambridge_University_Crest.svg and the original one, for example this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/University_of_Cambridge_logo.svg (without the text, obviously). It would be great if someone could upload the correct version . — Preceding --McAnt talk

1) You can't find "University of Cambridge Crest.svg" because it was deleted in a deletion review. 2) What is "fake" about the other one? It looks fine to me. 3) Can we stop calling this a crest? It's not a crest at all. Marnanel (talk) 10:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's a coat of arms. It's hard not to notice the difference between the original one and the fake one. I'm fully aware that this version appears all across the net, but this will hardly make the change valid - in fact I find it crazy that people continue to upload the fake one. And delete the correct version... Have a look at this https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/communications/services/trademark/about/coat.html and the fake one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cambridge_University_Crest.svg. You really can't spot the lions look totally different? Bigger, flatter, more details, etc. Even the book looks different in the center. The fake version has been created by somebody who wanted to create his or her own version of the University's coat of arms. That's fine. But this doesn't make it valid and peolle should stop using it instead the original one. Yeah, I know, they can't tell the difference..but there is a massive difference. Like I would upload Harvard's coat of arms and change "Veritas" to something else.McAnt (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think I see what you mean. I think we're talking about different things here. I think most people here want to show the University's coat of arms to identify the University; certainly I do. But you, for some reason, want to use the particular trademarked rendering of the coat of arms that the University uses. To my mind, this is pointless (because any accurate rendering of the blazon is as good as any other) and appears to be contrary to Wikipedia policy (because we shouldn't use trademarked images where non-trademarked images will do just as well). I don't know what you mean by "that doesn't make it valid", nor why you think that the version that happens to be used by the University as a trademark is "the original one". The original is the blazon, not any particular rendering of it. Your example of changing the words on Harvard's coat of arms is irrelevant, because the blazon specifies that the word is "Veritas". Marnanel (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The University's Office of External Affairs prefers to call it the University coat of arms or University shield. There have been many different renderings of this in the University's history, but anything that matches "Gules on a Cross Ermine between four Lions passant guardant Or a Bible fesswise Gules clasped and garnished Or the clasps in base" is equally "valid". Regarding trademarks, the University seems to claim a trademark on the arms rather than on any particular representation of them. I have no idea of the law at this intersection of heraldry and trademarks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.75.195 (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“because any accurate rendering of the blazon is as good as any other” You mean the case in point is to have four lions with a cross and a book? In that case I would like to add my own version, with Simba from the Lion King serving as the lions. Just as good as this one.

“that the version that happens to be used by the University as a trademark is "the original one"” You mean why the one created by 1573 by Robert Cooke is the original one? Perhaps because the University has been using it since then? Equally valid? Perhaps. Again, the version with a golden Simba would be equally valid, nevertheless that’s not what can be found on my Cantab degrees.

“But you, for some reason, want to use the particular trademarked rendering of the coat of arms that the University uses.” Wow. How bizarre. I want to see the university’s coat of arms instead of some Photoshop creation (with an accurate rendering of the blazon, sure). Trademarks or not, all universities have their correct coat of arms featured in their main wiki entry. I understand that it fills your hear with joy to see something with a correct blazon instead of the one used by the university, but this doesn’t make your point valid. Wikipedia’s main purpose is dissimilation of knowledge. The knowledge it shares about the University’s coat of arms is just simply not true because this is not the one that has been used for centuries. I fully agree, there've been several other versions over the years, nevertheless the wiki page should feature the one in use today, not something that never evern been served as the coat of arms of Cambridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McAnt (talk • contribs) 15:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking something I never said, and read what I actually said. The SVG image you are complaining about is the University's coat of arms as created in 1573. So is the trademarked image used by the University. If you don't understand this, please go away and learn about heraldry before you think to start discussing it in public. The coat of arms is the design, not the execution of the design. This is why the SVG image you are complaining about is better, and why it will continue to be used.

It is just not true to say that the SVG image you're complaining about "never even served as the coat of arms of Cambridge". To say this betrays ignorance of heraldry in general. And I really don't know what you mean about "it fills your heart with joy to see something with a correct blazon instead of the one used by the university", because if you'd actually read what I said, you'd understand that the University's rendering of the arms is also correct according to the blazon.

I am trying to explain to you here why the trademarked image was replaced, and what was unsuitable about it. If you don't want to listen, I can stop, but that doesn't change the existence of the principles. Pride in your ignorance of heraldry and a continued refusal to listen to answers to your questions is unworthy of a Cantabrigian. Marnanel (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The coat of arms taken from the University was deleted nunder our policy of non-free media because it was, in the opinion of contributors including me as a heraldry and vexillilogy contributor, too similar to the free version (which I think you call "fake"). As I understand it it was introduced only because the lions didn't fill the partitions set aside for them. There's no heraldic basis for that; OK, so it differed slightly from the version that the university uses but that is a very marginal difference and did in no way undermine understanding. If a free version of the "true" file existed, then that would definitely be an option. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because being a heraldry freak is worth of a Cantabrigian....sure. You are most certainly right from the point of heraldry, but this hardly changes the fact that this version of the coat of arms is not the one the university uses for some years now. You’re missing the point. If heraldry is so very important to you, then you will have no right to delete the version I will upload with the golden Simba. I can guarantee you that I will be using a correct blazon. The result will be perhaps a little different from the version adopted by the University, but who cares with that if the blazon is accurate? After all, this is your core argument, right?

Now, I can fully understand what Grandiose said about copyright. The thing I can’t understand is that why this only affects Cambridge? The wiki pages of Harvard, Oxford, Stanford, or UChicago for instance operates with the correct or just slightly altered versions of the coat of arms of these institutions. Without the shadow of doubt, those are trademarks too. Yet Cambridge is the only one from this group that boosts a heavily modified version (I know, I know, with an accurate blazon…), that is vastly different from that of the university’s coat of arms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McAnt (talk • contribs) 17:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the idea is that if there are two versions of an image when one is encumbered with various legal restrictions and one is not, then all things being equal you should use the one which is less encumbered. The question is whether things are equal or not.

In the case of heraldry the difference between the renderings is akin to the difference in fonts. If you had all kinds of onerous legal restrictions placed upon you by writing the logo of ACME Corp in ACMESerifBold rather than in Times New Roman (which it may look similar to), then it makes sense to use the Times New Roman version, particularly if (as in this case) various alternative renderings have been used for centuries. That doesn't mean that it's as good to write it in comic sans or goofy 2000 (nor the lion as Simba). It's only relatively recently that the University's corporate brand type people have started defining trademarks and the like for the University. For the vast majority of the University's history, and continuing in internal documents, all kinds of versions are used of the shield. Other versions of the shield are particularly unencumbered in the US, -- land of the Ren Fair and SCA, -- whereas in the UK we might face the wrath of the Bluemantle Pursuivant of Arms in Ordinary in any case. 81.141.91.145 (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

McAnt: You clearly - both by your own admission and from the things you've said - understand little of heraldry. That being the case, why are you arguing about a coat of arms, when you do not understand the argument? What you are saying is extremely similar to someone complaining about the picture of a car on the car article being a fake, because it doesn't happen to be the same picture of a car that the DVLA uses in their publications. It is still a picture of a car; and this is still the official coat of arms. If you wanted to create a version using an image of Simba as the lions, that would *also* be entirely valid. It just might not look particularly good. Using the car example above, it would be like taking a potentially bad photograph of your own car - yes, it would be a car; no, it wouldn't be suitable for the article. I suggest - before you continue this argument - that you read the Wikipedia pages on heraldry, specifically blazon, and learn what you're talking about before making yourself look silly. --90.245.62.105 (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

McAnt: I don't understand why "being a heraldry freak" would be unworthy of a Cantabrigian. I was president of CUHAGS in my time, if that helps you towards understanding. Marnanel (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, just dropped by from a note left at WP:HV and I have to say that, from a Heraldry standpoint, any red shield with a cross ermine and a book and lions in that posture is an "accurate" coat of arms. Yes, even one with Simba in it. But that's not really the discussion. The discussion is one based on image rights. Now, in order to use a non-free image (like the copyrighted version of the Cambridge arms) it needs to meet the non-free content criteria. The most important one, to this discussion, is NFCC#1: No free equivalent.

The problem is that the two sides here are having two different discussions. The proponants of the change are saying "we should use the logo that Cambridge uses" and the opponants are saying "Every coat of arms can be drawn differently and still be the same coat of arms". The conversation that we should be having should be between "The Cambridge Coat of Arms, recreated by blazon, is an acceptable equivalent" and "While the coat of arms may be correct, the logo of the University is not simply any rendering of those arms but this particular rendering and the point of having a logo in the infobox isn't particularly well-served by the recreation". I don't know which of these arguments is more compelling, but that's the discussion we should be having. It is a fact, not an opinion but pure fact, that the arms that appear on the page are the Cambridge arms. It's also true that the Pepsi logo might be described as "a circle with red and blue hemispheres seperated by a wave of white" and create very different results, which might not all be appropriate for the infobox for Pepsi. Achowat (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Assumptions to the contrary notwithstanding, I have some knowledge in heraldry, but this doesn’t change the fact that the current coat of arms on the wiki page is fairly different from the one used by the University. From a purely heraldic viewpoint this is a valid coat of arms, which fits well to the descriptions of the coat of arms of Cambridge. The Catalan Sheepdog and the Hungarian Puli are both black sheepdogs, same size, same weight, same color, quite the same look, nevertheless these are two very different species from two corners of Europe. Following the logic of the opponants, these breeds are one and the same, as both fits well to a certain description, though it is quite obvious that dog owners would be amused to hear such an argument.

I understand that the coat of arms used by the University is a trademark, and there are various legal restrictions as regards how people can use it, but I still find it hard to imagine that Cambridge University is the only university on Earth that don’t allow Wikipedia to feature it’s coat of arms on the page discussing the University. I should like to draw attention to the fact that hitherto seems like to have been overlooked, namely that companies such as Microsoft, Apple, Nike don’t have problems with their trademarked logos being used by Wikipedia, and all the wiki pages for UK universities feature their original, trademarked coat of arms. Not a heraldically correct one but the one used by the universities. I'm trying hard to understand why Cambridge should be the sole exception.

In a nutshell, the wiki page of the University could, of course, feature this version, or could feature a version with golden Simbas, but I just can’t see why. There is one point which is, for our present discussion, of great importance: the main purpose of Wikipedia is to dissimilate knowledge. Facts, and not own interpretations. People who are clicking on the wiki entry of Cambridge should see, therefore, the coat of arms used by the university, and not an “interpretation” no matter how correct rendering that is. McAnt (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

McAnt, you're falling into the same pitfalls as before. The arms of the University are being accurately represented. If you continue this line of "anything other than what I want isn't just wrong, but it's bad for the encylcopedia", you'll have a hard time building a real consensus. Achowat (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated University of Cambridge as a good article. Since it is definitely the most important article for this project, I thought you may be able to help or want to take part in the process. Thanks, --Mark91it's my world 12:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all! As an alumna myself and here on behalf of another, I'm wondering if anyone from this WikiProject would help with reviewing some updates to the article for David Harding. The full request is outlined on his Talk page here, but mainly involves addition of new details regarding his role with Britain Stronger in Europe as well as correcting some existing information in the article. Since Harding is an alumnus of Catz and continues to be involved with the university, he may be of interest to this WikiProject and I hope someone from here would be interested to review the proposed updates. As full disclosure, I am consulting for Harding via Robin Eggar at MBD Communications as part of my work at Beutler Ink and will not make any edits to the article myself due to this COI. Instead, I am seeking uninvolved editors to review and make such changes as they feel are appropriate. Thanks in advance, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done This request has been reviewed now. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While the main part of this request is done, I'm looking for help in adding a new photo of Mr. Harding: can anyone help? The new photo is linked from my request on the Talk page here. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The image has been added. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have access to Cambridge PhD theses either online or hard copy? Was wanting to check if Sydney Brenner was Karen Duff's doctoral supervisor; seems likely but can't be sure without a ref. Uhooep (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Cambridge Project has become inactive. This change is annoying to me as a user of the Rater tool. Unil the change, I could type "cam" and the University of Cambridge would be on a graduate's talk page, but no more. I can type it in, or copy from somewhere, but best would make project active again, but how?

Anyone, please help.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am inviting members of this WikiProject to give their view on the external links to combination room websites in external links sections on Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Common rooms in colleges. TSventon (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of relevance to this wikiproject: A discussion of the way UniCamb degrees are modelled over at Wikidata. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be keen to receive any help or further insight on this current draft. There is a good article on Apollo_University_Lodge at Oxford and this article remains a work in progress although has been subject to frequent vandalism.

Draft:Isaac_Newton_University_Lodge

JazzyCricket (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 10 § Category:Professors of the University of Cambridge. I have proposed standardising towards a convention of using at for institutions and of for subjects, in category names of the format "professor(ship)s [at/of] [institution/subject]" and "[sociologists/historians/etc] [at/of] [institution/subject]" (at least within the Cambridge category tree). I am cross-posting this here as we require more input to reach consensus. Charlie A. (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello editors, I wondered if any colleagues who are more familiar with the works of Priyamvada Gopal than me, might be able to help expand the content on her academic research? This is as a result of a suggestion on the talk page on how to resolve some ongoing questions on how to present her profile in the media. Many thanks in advance Lajmmoore (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Gibbons (biochemist) -- was the Chief Scientist of Theranos, who took his own life amid controversy over the company's technology. Recently expanded article and nominated for Good Article consideration. Thank you, Princessa Unicorn (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 29 § Category:Alumni by university or college in the United Kingdom. Ham II (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please can I kindly request an assessment for this article on the Importance Scale. Thankyou. 82.38.214.91 (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing to merge this and other inactive higher education-related wikiprojects to WikiProject Higher education. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education#Merge of inactive higher education wikiprojects. – Joe (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]