User talk:Lady Aleena/User Oxbridge

A lot of people have asked me why I am proposing this. The reason is that it is one of the few things that I can do for Wikipedia. You all either have attended or are attending one of these mystical institutions, while I have not. What that means is that you can make substantiative contributions to Wikipedia, while all I can do is fix links between articles and maybe a little bit of formatting here and there. You have the research methodology to write great articles, while I would not know where to begin.

My greatest contribution to Wikipedia to date is to user templates. I first started by categorizing them, then when that was as complete as possible, I started merging similar ones together and getting the then redundant templates deleted. That allowed user templates to have a smaller footprint here on Wikipedia. I have modified or created about 20 user templates and successfully merged around 170, which were deleted.

Using that success as a base, I tried to do the same with all the school user templates. I didn't realize that there would be such a negative reaction to the idea of one template to cover all schools. After seeing that reaction, I decided to narrow my focus to a small group of schools. The "Oxbridge" schools, sorry, colleges seemed to be a great place to start. There was an article on Oxbridge which showed that there was some connective tissue between the two universities, Cambridge and Oxford. That those universities had a plethora of colleges did not pose a problem. I know how to write a template that can change the colors for those colleges, abbreviations, and other details with just a few additional keystrokes.

Some of the templates that I have had great success with are time zone, Doctor Who, Monty Python, Star Trek, and Stargate. I knew that the fans of the latter four could be protective of their individual templates, but I was able to get them to agree that a merged one was just as good. The Monty Python template was a great achievement since it was so customizable to each person's favorite part of Monty Python.

I didn't realize that even on this level there would be such a great animosity to the idea of a merged template. Some of you must have had a great experience at your college to be so loyal that the idea of sharing a user template with another college is so offensive. I have never had that experience. I find the whole concept of Oxbridge intriguing and wonderful to the point where one template to cover the whole of it seemed to be a good idea.

Another reason to do this is that I am against the userbox migration to user space. These templates are being moved to a place where, in my opinion, they do not belong. The merging of templates was to be an alternative to it. Instead of moving the templates to user space, merge similar ones so that there are fewer of them to worry about. The merged templates that I have already done have been migrated to user space where they do not belong. They belong in template space with all of the other templates. If I could get a large enough group of templates merged, when I go to ask for the reversal of those moves, I could possibly convince those who have the power to put them back in template space that it would not be a bad thing.

There are 80 colleges under the Oxbridge umbrella and currently 40+ templates already created. Some of those colleges have two templates, while others have none. Some of the current templates are not being used by anyone, most have less than five users. If all of the colleges created two templates that would be 160 templates. If this one template can do the same as 160, why not have just the one? This one can be expanded to say more than the four current statuses. I was thinking about adding a "will be attending," "teaches at," and "works for," and for the fictional colleges (added or to be added for a bit of fun) "has read about." There could be other variations to those and more.

I did not follow my standard modus operandi for this template. I usually create the merged template, insert a message that the merged one is available, wait a week, then put the individual ones up for deletion. I wanted input from those who went to these colleges to make this template best serve the people attached to the colleges. I didn't expect to be so harshly criticized for the mere thought of it.

I really want this template to work, but if there is no chance, please tell me. I will get it speedily deleted and try to find another group of user templates unrelated to schools to hopefully merge that is not so controversial. - LA @ 18:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no chance of this working in its current form. Separate it into Oxford and Cambridge and it might just work, but even then I dount it. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No chance. Spend your time on a topic that you know something about. David Biddulph (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is very harsh. Lady Aleena does have a point. We do not have full coverage of the Colleges and 160 would be a lot to manage. Let us see if we can help her to get this right. --Bduke (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly if we're missing some colleges, there is use in this eexercise. And valid criticisms can be made without giving the impression that all Oxbridge graduates are arrogant snobs.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my! After reading a few of the articles on the universities, something I read (a work of fiction) makes sense! A character kept saying that she would be "reading" a subject. That didn't make any sense to me until now. I had no clue that "reading" in this context meant that she would be "studying" a subject. Prior to this, I kept thinking that I hope that she did more than just read the subject, but study it as well. I could read a subject for a year and not really absorb a thing. Just had to share that with you for some reason. One learns something new every day. :) - LA @ 12:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice bit of tidying up, but it won't do like that I'm afraid.

Those college abbreviations are hopeless: no-one remotely connected with Oxford would recognize "MeC" as anything to do with Merton.

There are a few colleges that do have well recognise Acronyms (some of which you already have):

• CCC - Corpus
• SEH - Teddy Hall
• BNC - Brasenose
• ChCh = Christ Church (emphatically *NOT* "CC"!)
• LMH - Lady Margaret Hall

but most of them just use the full name. If you must shorten it then, I'd suggest an initial syllable:

Mert. Trin. Linc. Exe. Jes. Som. Worcs. StJ. Wad.

but much better to use a crest if we can or perhaps a suitable thumbnail picture? Thruston (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will get onto the abbreviations you just gave me. Thanks! About the crests, don't most have copyrights? - LA @ 18:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL, but Coats of Arms are protected by Crown decree, and are probably covered by Crown Copyright. Since you would be using them for their intended purpose (i.e. identifying the armsbearer), it would be absolutely legal. Using college arms for the icons is a far superior solution to using obscure abbreviations. PeterBrett (talk) 09:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me for comments. As you couldn't tell the difference between a school and a college, you couldn't spell college, and you couldn't spell colour, then I wasn't very impressed. David Biddulph (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also intrigued as to why you list yourself in the category of Wikipedian by alma mater for each of the colleges. I don't know which college you attended, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't all of them. David Biddulph (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David, where did I get the spelling of college wrongcan't I be forgiven a typo? Also, I spell color the way I was taught in school which is without the "u." I use honor, program, etc. I am not listed in each category for the colleges, the test box is.

I just added colors to the left and right boxes, but it looks rather poor. I am back to the drawing board for those.

And may I ask why people are so attached to their schools/colleges/etc to the point the people want individual user boxes for them? I just don't get it. For the private institutions, people pay a lot of money to get told what to do for several years to get a piece of paper saying they did what they were told so they can get jobs to get told what to do. - LA @ 19:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your first question, on your page you refer to "Fictional collages".

You may have been taught to spell colour without the u, but those educated at Oxford or Cambridge have been taught to spell it correctly, so if you wish to address those people you would be advised to spell correctly.

You say "I am not listed in each category for the colleges, the test box is." I don't know what you mean by the test box, but there is a category whose description says: "This category contains the user pages of Wikipedia editors who are attending or attended St John's College at the University of Cambridge.", and I don't know why you have placed your user page in that category and in that of dozens of other colleges which you didn't attend.

You say that you don't understand why people are attached to their colleges; I guess that depends whether or not you attended a college worthy of such attachment. You have my sympathy if you didn't have such an opportunity. I will have to rely on your superior knowledge in regard to the private institutions to which you refer. David Biddulph (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to ever get an opportunity to go to any of these institutions, I would probably drive the professors nuts by using American English spelling.

This template is meant to place the user into the appropriate category by what college is chosen. Since the samples are all transclusions of the template, it will place it into all of the categories.

If one has to pay to get into it, it is a private institution. - LA @ 21:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking me to comment. I agree with all the previous comments (though not necessarily with the tone of one of the contributors). Most colleges do not have a recognisable abbreivation, and they would never ever be referred to as "schools". Additionally, I'm not sure anyone would ever say they "attend Oxbridge" or are "an alumnus/a of Oxbridge" as Oxbridge is not an institution. Also in the design of the user boxes, the big "Ox" is just about recognisable as relating to Oxford, but I don't think anyone would see "Ca" and think "Cambridge". I like Thruston's idea of using the crests, as used in some of the current user boxes. Mister Ant (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to concur with Thruston. It would be great if you could use the crests. However, I do appreciate the care you've taken with the colours. I don't know if you're eyeballing the colours or if you're using the Pantone system or similar. If not, I highly recommend doing so. The various college offices should be able to help you find out the exact shades of their colours according to whatever colour matching system they use, if any. JFD (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just think of the Oxbridge example as a sample of the statuses. (Statuses sounds wrong for some reason.) I didn't realize that the word school would cause such a problem. I will change the word now. I am using the colors that were used in the Academic scarf article.

JFD, thank you for finding the typo. - LA @ 19:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be boring, but I agree with Thruston and Mister Ant. The abbreviations aren't ideal. Crests would be far better. In answer to your question, I can only speak for Cambridge, but I think most people feel far more attached to their college than to the university, since it's the place where they eat, sleep, socialise and get a good portion of their teaching. The University of Cambridge is only a monolithic institution when viewed from outside; from within it's a fairly faceless, non-contact entity. Also... what exactly do you mean by the comment about "private institutions"? You seem to have a rather cynical view of Oxbridge, which in itself is of course fine, but if this is the case why are you working on Oxbridge userboxes? Muspilli (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not cynical about Oxbridge specifically, it is a general feeling toward all schools where one has to pay to go to them. I did for a year and because I didn't do as I was told, I was booted. It was a very bad year for me, one which I paid for the next several years with nothing to show for it.

I have never been to any of these places. I haven't been to the UK. I have read about these places in fiction. From what I read in those books and the Oxbridge, Cambridge, and Oxford articles, Oxbridge sounds wonderful. I can't even afford the local community college.

I thought it might be a great idea to have one template for all of the colleges and halls attached to Oxbridge instead of having oodles of templates scattered all over the place. - LA @ 20:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse all of Thruston's, Mr Ant's and Muspilli's comments (except for "Nice bit of tidying up"). Xn4 20:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Oxford nor Cambridge is a private university like, for example, the American Ivy League. There was some talk about Oxford and Cambridge charging higher fees than other British universities some time back, but I don't know if that ever amounted to anything. Even then, the fees would still be far less than an American private university.

And try not to feel left out. You are far from the only person in the world for whom university didn't work out. And should you return one day, you do so with a hard-won wisdom most of your classmates will lack.

Also, instead of "This user is or was attending (school)", it might be better to have "This user is or was a Member of (school)". I must admit that I don't know if this terminology is universal among Oxford colleges, let alone all of Oxbridge. Nor does it deal with the All Souls issue. Xn4 is right. Leave that one alone. JFD (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I say below from an earlier posting, you do not cease to be a member. 50 years after I matriculated, I am still a member of The Queen's College, Oxford and find this important even though I now live on the other side of the world. I still visit there about once a year. The current userboxes use "studies" or "studied", which, while not ideal, is better than attended. Even better might be " .. studies at and is a member of" or " .. studied at and is a member of". That would be much better if it fits in the box. --Bduke (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. I respectfully suggest that your project is doomed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks first for asking me over here to comment. I created the two for The Queens's College. You have made a great effort. However, I question whether it was required. The existing templates are perfectly OK. I also think there is a serious problem in you doing these templates when you very clearly know very little about Oxford or Cambridge. You are going to have to listen very carefully to those of us who do know those two ancient universities and their colleges, if this is going to get accepted. First, you do not attend an Oxbridge College. You are admitted as a member and if you pay the fees while you are up in Oxford you become a member for life. I am a member of The Queen's College although I matriculated over 50 years ago. Secondly, the abbreviation for the Oxford Colleges (I have not looked at the other place) are mostly wrong. Queen's for example is normally abbreviated to "Qu". I think there is a set of standard abbreviations but I am not sure where it is. I think the colours are OK. The scarves article is probably good enough, but they are also on the infobox for each College article. I suggest you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject University of Oxford for comment. College Crests are copyrighted and some have been deleted in the past. It is not fair use on a userbox. More later as I have to rush off. --Bduke (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand why the college names have to be abbreviated :( Yes, Wadham could become Wad or Wadh (the start of our email sign-on details) but Wadham isn't a terribly long name, and changing Exeter to Exe and Merton and Hertford to Mert and Hert... It sounds stupid. Something I think the majority of Oxbridge graduates would prefer to avoid...

I would also object strongly to a user box that refers to me as an "Oxbridge" anything. Even if I had degrees from both Oxford and Cambridge (which I'm hoping to acquire!), I would only be an 'Oxbridge' graduate in the sense that I need to be categorised with students/graduates from the two olderst universities in England. Oxbridge is also a muddy category, because England's other collegiate university, Durham, sometimes wants to be included in this category of "Doxbridge" or "Duxbridge". Must we also include them? Standardising the userboxes is a good idea, but I want to be listed as a member of Wadham College, Oxford, not a member of 'Oxbridge', because that only exists as a woolly concept.Wadhamite (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, "Schools" at Oxford is (variously, as I currently hear it referred to by my fellow undergrads!), the Exam Schools - buildings where we have lectures and sit exams; the Honour Schools of your subject (final exam); and possibly some of the exams the classicists sit - not as sure about this one, their final exams might be called "Greats"... but I think many subjects shorten their final exams to "Schools", as most subjects have a Schools drinks and/or dinner for finalist. Wadhamite (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to point out that in one of your draft boxes, "attending All Souls College, Oxford" sounds crazy. All Souls has no undergraduates, its members are all Fellows... perhaps you could create a box saying "this user is or was a Fellow of All Souls", but it seems very unlikely to me that anyone from All Souls would want to be identified here in that way! Xn4 20:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If All Souls has no students, why is it called a college? I have heard the word Fellow used before, I am just not sure of what it means in regards to a college. - LA @ 21:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A college doesn't have to have 'students' - think, for example, of the College of Cardinals - but (as it happens) All Souls did once have undergraduates. Then it found it could get along without them. But it's still an Oxford college. On the word Fellow, I can only suggest you look it up, but if you need to, then (if you'll forgive my directness) you'd do better to leave Oxford and Cambridge matters alone. Xn4 19:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to BDuke (writing in The way forward, below), All Souls did once have undergraduates, especially around the early 17th century, introduced to provide servientes. The downside soon appeared and the college decided to lose them, although a few survived into the early twentieth century, such as the Rev. Thomas Forster Rolfe (born 1855), an undergraduate at All Souls from 1874-1878. This is missing from our article on the college, I'll add it there. Xn4 23:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to the complexity, All Souls does have small numbers of graduate students. I guess these are usally Prize Fellows but somebody more expert may be able to clarify. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it has been brought up, would someone be willing to get me a list of the images for the crests for all of the colleges and halls? I am only on dial-up, so searching for images is a bit of a problem since it takes so long for them to load. I would be very grateful for any and all assistance with this. - LA @ 19:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A selection is available over at Wikimedia Commons, which presumably gets round the copyright problem, although IANAL. Muspilli (talk) 20:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an Oxford sister category? - LA @ 20:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NB: a crest isn't the shield-shaped thing you seem to have in mind, it's the smaller device which sits on top of it, which almost no one would recognize. You might get away with using the colleges' coats of arms (I don't know of any of them which object to such uses) but strictly speaking the use of a coat of arms, except by its owner, is unlawful, and an admin here at Wikipedia might pick up on it. I know that's already happened with some templates which were using the coats of arms of counties, boroughs, etc. Xn4 20:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I brought up the copyright issue earlier. - LA @ 21:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly there's no Oxford sister category that I can find. I'd be surprised if there were an issue with using the coats of arms for these templates, as one is currently being used for Clare College, for example, and is present in Wikimedia Commons; but, as I said, I'm no lawyer, and certainly no expert in heraldic matters! Muspilli (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, give me the abbreviations or short forms I should use in the right hand boxes of this template. - LA @ 20:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Altered - LA @ 22:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Below is a (partial) list of abbreviations, culled from an online official Ox U document - actually a list of people awarded BCLs in 2002 - and with the college names inserted by me in front of the abbreviation - except for one (H.Man), which may be some outfit that appeared or changed its name after (ahem) 1969.

• Balliol: Ball.
• Brasenose: BNC
• Christ Church: Ch.Ch.
• Corpus Christi: Corpus
• Exeter: Exeter
• ??????: H.Man.
• Hertford: Hert.
• Jesus: Jesus
• Keble: Keble
• Lincoln: Linc.
• Lady Margaret Hall: LMH
• Magdalen: Magd.
• Mansfield: Mans.
• Merton: Mert.
• New: New
• Oriel: Oriel
• Pembroke: Pemb
• Queens’: Queens
• St Anne’s: S.Anne
• St Catherine’s: S.Cat.
• St Hugh’s: S.Hugh
• St John’s: S.John
• St Peter’s: S.Pet.
• St Edmund Hall: SEH
• Somerville: Somer.
• Trinity: Trin.
• University: Univ.
• Wadham: Wadh.
• Worcester: Worc.

--GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H.Man. is presumably Harris Manchester? David Biddulph (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or conceivably "Holywell Manor"! (where Merton scouts used to have houses...) Thruston (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with others that there is no need for unified userboxes to replace the existing ones using coats of arms, but there are standard Cambridge abbreviations as well. Joseph Myers (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Manchester can also be abbreviated to HMC (as in their email addresses) Wadhamite (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of Cambridge College abbreviations based on the class lists, with commonly used names in brackets - I leave the decision about what to put for each college in the RHS of the userbox up to others:

• Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge: Cai (Caius)
• Corpus Christi College, Cambridge: CC (Corpus)
• Christ's College, Cambridge: Chr (Christ's)
• Churchill College, Cambridge: Chu (Churchill)
• Clare College, Cambridge: Cl (Clare)
• Clare Hall, Cambridge: ClH (Clare Hall)
• St Catharine's College, Cambridge: Cth (Catz)
• Darwin College, Cambridge: Dar (Darwin)
• Downing College, Cambridge: Dow (Downing)
• St Edmund's College, Cambridge: Ed (Edmund's)
• Emmanuel College, Cambridge: Em (Emma)
• Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge: F (Fitz)
• Girton College, Cambridge: G (Girton)
• Homerton College, Cambridge: Ho (Homerton)
• Hughes Hall, Cambridge: HH (?)
• Jesus College, Cambridge: Je (Jesus)
• St John's College, Cambridge: Jn (John's)
• King's College, Cambridge: K (King's)
• Lucy Cavendish College, Cambridge: LC (?)
• Magdalene College, Cambridge: M (Magdalene)
• Murray Edwards College, Cambridge: NH (Murray Edwards/New Hall)
• Newnham College, Cambridge: N (Newnham)
• Pembroke College, Cambridge: Pem (Pembroke)
• Peterhouse, Cambridge: Pet (Peterhouse)
• Queens' College, Cambridge: Q (Queens')
• Robinson College, Cambridge: R (Robinson)
• Selwyn College, Cambridge: Se (Selwyn)
• Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge: Sid (Sidney)
• Trinity College, Cambridge: T (Trinity)
• Trinity Hall, Cambridge: TH (Trinity Hall)
• Wolfson College, Cambridge: W (Wolfson)

Dark-Fire (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Cambridge has six Schools, none of which are listed here - instead you have listed the colleges. Gingekerr (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a rough draft, I was using the word school defined as a place where one goes to learn. I didn't know that word would cause such a problem. Where are these six schools listed? I don't see a list of them, unless I missed it in the main Cambridge article. - LA @ 20:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The schools are listed here; they're the six main headings on the page. These entities are, if anything, even more ephemeral than the University itself; no one would say that they belonged to the School of Arts and Humanities, for example. Muspilli (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the usage of the words "school" and "college" in the context of ancient institutions such as Oxford and Cambridge universities is quite different from normal English usage and very different from US usage. Please get it right. PeterBrett (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:

• Why the urge to replace the current user boxes?
  • It is part of a bigger project to stop and hopefully reverse the userfication of user templates by merging similar ones. I have done this before with great success. - LA
• I see references above to college abbreviations - where are these? I don't see them on the project page.
  • You should be able to see them once you click [Show] on the tables. - LA
    • OK I see them now, thank you. – ukexpat (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely do not refer to Oxford and Cambridge in this context as Oxbridge - they are separate institutions with long established identities (and rivalries) and should not be lumped together, unless you also plan to lump together all the other UK universities as "red brick" - that would not be well received!
  • I have read the Oxbridge article, and it is from that this idea sprang. - LA
    • Let me put it this way, no one who was a student at Oxford or Cambridge would refer to either or both as Oxbridge. As far as I recall the term is usually used somewhat disparagingly, such as when the British press wants to take a pop at either or both. – ukexpat (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Similarly please do not refer to colleges as "schools" -- at least in the Oxford context, "School" and "Schools" have specific meanings.
  • As I have already said, I didn't know that there was such a bias against calling the colleges schools. I have changed the word on the page to colleges and halls. - LA
    • It's not a bias, it's a different usage of the word. When a Brit asks "what school did you go to?" they mean pre-university education. Brits, at least in my day and probably the same now, never refer to university as "school", that is an American usage. As I said, at Oxford "School(s)" has a distinct meaning, probably beyond the scope of comments on this topic. – ukexpat (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean this to be anonymous, sorry:  – ukexpat (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any other questions? :) - LA @ 20:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above! – ukexpat (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are more important things to do than this. One of last week's articles of the day is a good example. I am not that sure I would want to be lumped in with the other lot, anyway. JMcC (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, this is not a 'nice piece of tidying up' as suggested by Thruston,(who then goes on to muddy the waters still further). If it needs doing at all, the right answer is to have a template for each college, e.g. the one which as far as I can recall I designed myself for King's Cambridge, and which can be seen on my userpage. So I am in agreement with the anonymous writer of 'What am I missing here' above. Best regards, --Smerus (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Smerus. Xn4 20:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I think your goal is admirable I'm not sure there's any call/demand for this? In fact a recent move to create one userbox for all UK academic institutions just got shot down in flames.

Obviously I should declare a vested interest having created the SEH userbox but I'm not a fan of the visual style you're using here. Firstly I hate serif fonts - can't explain it I just always have. Secondly I agree with the call to have college crests as thumbnails, a border would be nice too. A lot of work was done to set the college scarf colours in the infobox templates - are you grabbing the userbox colours from there?

I also agree that as the college abbreviations need to be looked at. Might be a bit laborious for you to find all these out but they're usually printed all over college clothing. Some off the top of my head are:

• St. Edmund Hall - SEH or Hall
• University College - Univ
• Christ Church - Ch-Ch
• Corpus Christi - Corpus
• St. Catherine's - Catz or St Catz
• St. Hilda's - Hilda's
• Lady Margaret Hall - LMH

Good luck! Aula^TPN 21:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What color should the border be, the same as the middle box or the outside boxes? I can't decide.

The template is using san-serif in the center box. I used serif in the outer boxes to make them stand out a bit. - LA @ 22:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LA, you asked me to comment. The first thing that jumps out is the phrase "is or was attending." First, you don't hear the phrase "attending Oxford" that often, never mind Oxbridge, but just as a matter of grammar, it wouldn't be "is or was attending." It would have to be something like "is attending or has attended," if the word "attend" were to be used. But again, I don't think you can really say that someone "attended Oxbridge." I think I prefer the current userboxes. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for most Oxford and Cambridge colleges, I believe that the best terminology would be "is a member of", since you become a member of the college on matriculation. PeterBrett (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keble was always abbreviated as K.C. when I was there, being the only Oxford college with K. Many nonOxonians seemed to think we had a King's College, but we didn't. In those days, there was no Kellogg. I don't think this has impacted on Keble being K.C. Ringbark (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The abbreviation has been changed in the right hand box. - LA @ 22:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments about the tag for my alma mater. The abbreviation is not Worcs as suggested above - that is the abbreviation for Worcestershire. The abbreviation is Worc. (The college website is found at "www.worc.ox.ac.uk".) Secondly, the college colours are tasteful pink and black stripes - at least they were that when I was there only just over a quarter of a century ago. My scarf was from Castells and was quite a light pink, the other scarf supplier favoured a more salmon colour.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the Worc. colour to use is the one at Category:Wikipedians_by_alma_mater:_Worcester_College,_Oxford - but please note that the college name is NOT abbreviated as "WC"! - and as I see that you've joined all the other "Wikipedians by alma mater: x college Ox/Camb" you can take all the colours from the user boxes displayed there. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I don't know why I messed up the color for that one, and I changed the abbreviation in the right hand box. - LA @ 22:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that "PET" would be preferable to "P". Best of luck with the project!-- Diniz (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there; thanks for your note to let me know about your efforts to update and improve the college userboxes for Oxford and Cambridge. Comments in list form (primarily because I'm lazy but also for ease of reading):

• Please don't take some of the above comments personally, such as those about spelling. Really...people clearly don't realise it does nothing for their image critiquing people on such banal issues as American vs. British English.
• The college abbreviations generally seem fine to me: the corrections have been pointed out (e.g. from my perspective Worc is the abbreviation for Worcester, rather than WC (which is an abbreviation for water closet!) or Worcs (which as someone said is for Worcestershire)).
• I think if you could use the college coat of arms it would be preferable to the abbreviation. Copyright issues abound though.
• I don't agree with lumping Oxford and Cambridge together as Oxbridge in any userbox. They may be perceived as equivalent institutions by some, in certain ways, but they're separate universities and it would be the same as using Liverchester for Liverpool University and Manchester University which are also very alike...!
• I like your use of the college colours: looks great!

Keep up the work, and don't be dissuaded from your efforts by personal attacks from other editors. Coldmachine^Talk 07:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't dream of saying I had anything to do with 'Oxbridge' - but then, as I imagine no one except an impostor would use such boxes, the point may be academic. Xn4 20:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Oxbridge seems to be the parent of sorts to the other institutions, according to its article, I used it as the base. - LA @ 21:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Oxbridge' isn't a parent of any sort to Oxford or Cambridge. It's a very colloquial portmanteau word for saying 'Oxford and Cambridge Universities' more quickly. It has no existence beyond that. Xn4 19:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone has already said, I don't think it's right in this case to lump the two universities together. I did not apply to or matriculate at or study at or graduate from Oxbridge, and I don't know anyone else who did, and I have no desire to proclaim allegiance to a portmanteau. Philip Trueman (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd second this. --cfp (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after thinking about it so will I. Aula^TPN 15:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To have any chance of getting this agreed, I think you will have to do the following:-

1. Totally forget about userboxes for "Oxbridge" and indeed never use the term in connection with these userboxes ever again. It really is not acceptable.
2. Split the template into two. One for Oxford and one for Cambridge.
3. Get the abbreviations right.
4. Change "attended" to "studied" as in the current userboxes. I'm not happy with the latter either but it is better than the former and it is what we already have.

Then is might fly. --Bduke (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you have noticed us Oxford and Cambridge folks are a prickly lot. We are loyal to our Colleges, indeed much more loyal to the College than to the University as a whole. The Colleges are more successful at getting money out of old members (another term that you may not have realised is generally used more than alumni) than the University does. --Bduke (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never answered your question about All Souls and intended to. When the colleges were founded they were collections of scholars. They developed to having scholars who were governing the colleges. These were called Fellows and had an MA degree that entitled them to govern the university as well as their college. Only later was the idea of undergraduate scholars formalised. All Souls never did that, so it is just a body of very distinguished Fellows some of whom hold chairs in the University or other positions and some of whom are prominent in public life and are not generally in Oxford. That one should be removed. As someone said above, it is unlikely ever to be used. --Bduke (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statuses changed to...

1. an undergraduate student
2. a graduate student
3. no change
4. no change
5. a Fellow

The default text is "This user is a member of (college)."

Does that suit so far? I still need to get the color text colors. - LA @ 11:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least for Oxford, I'd advocate...

1. an undergraduate
2. a postgraduate
3. an old member [amalgamate with the below]
4. an old member [amalgamate with the above]
5. a Fellow

Comment: unless I am hopelessly out of date - which isn't out of the question - the words "alumnus" and "alumna" aren't used much, if at all, though I think that "alumni" as a collective term is sometimes used. I think of myself as an old member, because that's what my College (Worcester) calls me, but other colleges may do things differently. I also think that distinguishing male and female alumni is a bit odd, given that a) undergrads/postgrads/Fellows aren't categorised by sex in your Statuses and b) some Wikipedians prefer not to reveal whether they are male or female.

--GuillaumeTell (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, Oxbridge is the default setting if the switch in the second position is not chosen. I expect that the users will always have a switch in the second position, so that Oxbridge would not come up. Remember, these are not all truly seperate boxes. They are the same box with different variables in certain sections which control the the text and colors of the box and the category in which the user will be placed. The non-chosen second position in the sample is just for the purpose of showing the various statuses. To seperate out the two universities would be extremely difficult at this juncture. Many of the colleges have the same color in certain positions so they have a single switch.

If the two lists of colleges within the two universities had the correct abbreviations on them, I would already have those set up. If you are referring to the switch setting abbreviations, they are just to make the box change text and color and will not be visible anywhere but on it edit screen of your user page. - LA @ 11:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my continual use of the word school. It is probably an American thing, since graduate students here go to grad schools. Please, I beg you, don't thwop me for it. - LA @ 12:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LA: Really the way forward is to abandon this project and think again. If you are being thwopped, it is I think because you are being rather disingenuous. It is rather as if I, who know little or nothing about US academia, took it upon myself to merge all the US educational institutions in the Ivy League under a single banner or emblem. I can imagine the rage which would (rightly) descend on me if I had the temerity to do so. There is no point in Wikipedia in categorization for categorization's sake - indeed it is one of WP's deadly sins. I would let it lie. Best regards, Smerus (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LA, I think the above is too harsh, but you will have to split the template and stop using "Oxbridge". You will never get Oxford and Cambridge folks to agree to that. Just copy the template and then remove all the Oxford stuff from one and all the Cambridge stuff from the other. Make Oxford or Cambridge respectively the defaults. If you are not prepared to do that, then you will have to forget it. Sorry. --Bduke (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I really wanted is to delete every single school/college/university template out there in favor of {{User school}}. One template instead of close to 1,000. Since that was shot down, I really wanted this to fly since there is an article on Oxbridge which does show that the two universities are connected. My goal is to reverse the userbox migration into user space. I want all user templates back in template space where they belong. The only way that will happen is if it can be shown that there aren't all that many of them, and that they won't be so intrusive. I was hoping that those who went to these colleges would be gracious enough to allow me this little thing. I am surprised that there is this much animosity toward this template. If I had a chance to go to one of these institutions, I would be proud to say that I went to an Oxbridge college. The whole idea that Oxbridge encompasses Cambridge and Oxford just makes it that much better.

I was really hoping for the support of those who had anything to do with an Oxbridge college. It sounded so wonderful from its article. Now I see that it is a place divided, and that is very sad. I will have to start again from scratch dividing what seemed to be a great place into two halves. - LA @ 23:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxbridge is not a place. We are talking about two ancient rivals. The two universities have only minor connections. I was at Oxford for 6 years. I never even went to Cambridge until years after I graduated. I understand what you are doing, but it is not going to fly. Just split it into two and see how that goes. --Bduke (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stunned that LA can call the invented word Oxbridge "a place divided". It makes me shudder that someone displaying such monumental ignorance of a subject (viz., the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge) can set out to debate it, let alone to take on such a task. Are we on Da Ali G Show? Xn4 00:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of specifying myself as someone from Oxbridge feels synthetic and elitist as if I'm claiming the Oxford and Cambridge superiority associated with the Oxbridge term. Saying that you attended either Oxford or Cambridge University on the other hand is a matter of fact and although either may be considered an elitist institution, it doesn't have the inherent deliberate elitism that I feel an Oxbridge box would have. To reiterate what's been said above, Oxbridge isn't a place: Oxford and Cambridge are both cities that are miles apart (and actually quite a nightmare to travel between as there are no direct road links - you usually travel via London). I appreciate your humility in the face of all the hostility, but insisting to any former Oxford or Cambridge students that they attended Oxbridge is a bad idea. I love the city of Oxford and the time I spent there and although I'd love to visit, I've never been to Cambridge. The Oxbridge term has its uses but here it just feels really wrong; the "Oxbridge College" term feels particularly awkward. krebbe (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be better to leave this project to someone who knows more about the subject. There must be something more within your own area of experience that you could work on. As a comment on the templates themselves - they do nothing for me. I would not put one of them on my page.--Doug (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I am using Oxonian terminology here and apologize to any Tabs if at first they fail to understand.

Firstly: The term student is misleading, and potentially confusing, especially if the person in question is at Christ Church, for example. Student at Christ Church has as its equivalent term at most, if not at all other colleges, the term fellow. I take it that the student of the categories proposed so far is not intended as such. Besides, the term is not used officially in other contexts, nor, for that matter, and as far as I know, are undergraduate or graduate.

For instance, a matriculated member of a college, studying at that college, who has a degree which is not officially recognised by the Universities of Oxford or Cambridge (ie. who does not hold a degree from the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, or from Trinity College, Dublin and who has not been incorporated but matriculated), and is on the point of submitting a D. Phil thesis, would usually and casually be called a graduate student; officially, however, he has the same status as has someone in the first year of his studies having just matriculated, this latter usually and casually being called a (first-year) undergraduate (student).

Perhaps the categories could involve the terms commoner, exhibitioner, and scholar, as well as junior member and senior member in order to get past this problem. I am not sure if there is an official term, middle member, but perhaps that would be useful here, as a term parallel with those of the Common Rooms, Junior, Middle, and Senior.

Secondly: To an extent I agree with some of Bduke's comments (23:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)) above, particularly that 'Oxbridge is not a place'; there is no real institution, Oxbridge, of which I am a member. I am a commoner junior member of X College, which is in Oxford, and which is incorporated into the University thereof.

I am not sure that I see or understand the motivation (cf. The Reason) behind making an 'Oxbridge' template. Your assumption that those who attend or who have attended the Universities 'can make substantiative contributions to Wikipedia, [...] [and] have the research methodology to write great articles' is generally well-founded (its argument is generally true), but this should be manifest simply from having templates for colleges each and for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge each. Each College is a separate and autonomous institution incorporated into either University, and so even having templates for the 'University of Oxford' and the 'University of Cambridge' may be pushing it.

Lastly: For these reasons and more I would not be in favour of the creation of a template, 'Oxbridge', neither would I put such a template to my name, were it to be created.

Floreat Oxon.

PETF (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made no secret that I find this project foolish. I completely agree with PETF's objections to the word 'student'. For those who are in residence at Oxford the word 'member' (of a college or hall) can stand for all of the others (commoner, exhibitioner, scholar, undergraduate, junior member, senior member, Fellow of most colleges, & Student of Christ Church), but while we are members of the University for life, we become former members of colleges when we go down. Xn4 18:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not. All members of the Queen's College become members of the College for life. The only former member would be someone who left before paying fees for a sufficient period, but I am not even certain about that. I am certain that 50 years after I matriculated I am still a member of the College. --Bduke (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bduke is right: an old member is still a member. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's curious. Looking into it, I've found some colleges (including mine) which refer to those not in residence as former members. For instance, the Linacre home page here says "If you are a current or former member of the college...", Corpuscles: a History of Corpus Christi College, Oxford is described by the the OUP here as "memoirs of undergraduate life written by former members of the college in each matriculation year from 1913 to 1990" and the Univ Old Members’ Trust page here says "the relationship between current and former members of the College". Can anyone give a link to a college's web page which takes the opposite view? Xn4 20:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the last page of the latest newsletter for old members from the Old Members' Officer of the Queen's College, it states "You are a member of Queen’s for life (whether you like it or not) and, unlike some institutions, we value that relationship in itself". Note the use of the term "old member" not "former member" and also that this page talks of "its non-resident members". I am sure there is a better reference somewhere but that is all I can find for now. --Bduke (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have this feeling that you're all flogging a dead horse - Lady A's last contribution here was on 12 March, and I imagine that she's given it all up as a bad job. --GuillaumeTell (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, it was a bad job. But, in the words of The Fixx, "one thing leads to another". Xn4 08:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really a massive strain on resources for Wikipedia?

Userboxes are in the main just a bit of frivolity for semi-active or active contributors and have no impact upon the usefulness of Wikipedia as a resource.

I much prefer my own Merton College userbox to your standardised version.

Also, the Queens College box looks odd due to the impracticability of abbreviating that college name.

--DWR (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without wanting in any way to disparate Lady Aleena's hard work here, I'd like to make a few points. Firstly, the word 'Oxbridge' is a bit pejorative and doesn't actually refer to anything; it would be like having an 'Ivy League' box for American schools or using the ridiculous portmanteau 'Princevard' to refer to them. It's both snobbish and inaccurate. Secondly, people like me, ie non-UK citizens who did research at Oxford or Cambridge, don't really buy into this college loyalty thing. Research happens in archives and labs and college is a place to do your laundry, pick up mail and have your blood sucked by the Bursar. 'Oxonian' is about as accurate as I want to be in this.

Having said that, of course I acknowledge that others may feel differently. But I'd request them to be a bit more polite to pople who are trying to help, like Lady Aleena here. If they have points to make, they can make them without getting on to their 'Oxbridge' high horse.

Rimi talk contribs 06:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That point of view is fair enough. However, the word 'Oxbridge' is used a reasonable amount in the UK, because Cambridge and Oxford are very different, in many ways, from the rest of the universities here. For example, people who apply through UCAS to Oxford, Cambridge or to do Medicine at any university, have a much earlier deadline for their application than applicants to other universities or courses (October, rather than January, in the academic year before the year they plan to start). I could go on listing the many strange differences, but the example I've given should give you an idea of their significance to some, and their nature. Consequently 'Oxbridge' isn't snobbish (at least, not in my experience) - just different. The notoriously short terms are another example. Personally, I think it's a good idea to standardise the Oxbridge userboxes - it means that no colleges are left out (currently a lot are), and it (obviously) standardises their format and colouring rules (the colour of the userbox is now informative rather than logical and/or nice). Dark-Fire (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But remember who the users of these boxes will be - members of Oxford and Cambridge colleges, and I would bet that 99.99% of them would never use the term "Oxbridge" with respect to their university. – ukexpat (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that 99.99% of people can make the userbox more specific. I'm using it, and it says "This user is a member of Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge." No mention of Oxbridge. Dark-Fire (talk) 10:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While discussion is continuing here, it should be noted that User:Lady Aleena appears to have given up on this project. It is essentially historic. I suggest there is no point in discussing it unless someone is prepared to take over the project and spend time improving it. I would suggest that in improving it, any possibility that a user box might say anything like "This user was at Oxbridge" should be removed. However the term Oxbridge could be used as the name of the userbox, provided it only allows boxes about Oxford, Cambridge and their colleges. That is an appropriate use. I would support it if that was the case, but I have no time to work on the project. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support this project too, as the userbox is very versatile. However, I also don't think I have enough time to help with this project, and I have very little experience in such projects. Dark-Fire (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to change New Hall to Murray Edwards College (the new name is being used from this academic year, despite the fact that the college is due to be renamed legally in May 2009), but it hasn't worked. Seeing as nobody from that college is actually using the userbox at the moment, I've left my edit in the hope that someone will spot what I've done wrong and fix it - I think I've done most of the work. Dark-Fire (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been playing around, and I think the problem is actually just some sort of cache on Wikipedia - if you try to edit User:Lady_Aleena/User_Oxbridge, and then click 'show preview', it works fine (I think previewing forces all of the code to run, so no caches are used). Therefore, I think the problem is resolved. Dark-Fire (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]