Talk:University of Southampton/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Clubs & Socs as External Links

I don't think clubs and socs should be listed as external links in this article. To include some and not others looks like advertising/spam (I notice that they're usually added one at a time by different individuals, which raises my suspicions) and there are too many to list all of them here. If we are to have a list of all the clubs and socs, it should be a separate list from the main article, and (presumably) each society should also have its own article, if it's notable enough. I'm sure they're all linked to from the student union's site, so surely just the one link there would suffice. Waggers 14:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

POV Discussions

Who is writing this article?- Southampton students I imagine as it seriously overstates Southampton's research and prestige. Also deleted the comment about the RAE as the RAE did not publish a top ten. Can we edit from a NPOV, as with all due respect Southampton is not really a top university and is never anywhere near the top ten in any British league table. Based on league tables the top universities are Cambridge, Oxford, LSE, Imperial, UCL, Warwick, York, Bristol, Edinburgh, Birmingham, St Andrews and Durham- this list was published by the Sutton Trust an independent analysis of Britian's top universities based on league tables.

Needs to have a NPOV. And should sound less like the text from a prospectus. Should include:

What the university does -- main subjects, areas of research, famous achievements
Who's been there -- famous people who went there User:Tzartzam 2 Oct 2002

Dear Tzartzam,

FYI - the Sutton Trust is a highly biased source for comparing universities. It's stated focus is on education and not academic research. Incidentally, this is also the inherent bias in most journalistic treatment of the issue. Southampton is a research university!

Also re the RAE comment you removed, RAE may not publish a top ten, but it is a relatively simple exercise to get the institutional rankings by counting up the number of 5*s, 5s, etc. that each institution received in the published RAE tables. Do so and you will see that Southampton is top ten any way you care to slice it - and has been for many years!

Just been reading this article, and its rather embarrasing the POV in this, and I even graduated from Soton Uni. The info could be much better presented esp the first openning paragraph Philbentley 03:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved POV material, needs rewriting/correcting:

...the UK's nearest equivalent to an Ivy League, and is currently ranked 5th for overall research quality. Southampton's research performance is bettered only by the University of London, Oxford, Cambridge and Warwick. Southampton's teaching quality is regarded as one of the best in the country and arguably the best of the Red Brick universities. The university has a strong technical and technological pedigree and has long been regarded as one of Britain's best science universities and the best at engineering. Southampton's economics and business qualifications are in high demand internationally, particularly at post-graduate level, because of the university's acknowledged supremacy in econometrics and quantitative methods.

In terms of atmosphere, Southampton's focus is on research and acquiring knowledge rather than social positioning. To draw a parallel with US universities, if Harvard is America's Oxford, then MIT is America's Southampton. Southampton's student population grew a lot in the 1990s to become one of the UK's largest universities and also one of the most in demand. It occupies a spacious campus on the south English coast. User:Imran 14 Nov 2002

"if Harvard is America's Oxford, then MIT is America's Southampton", I couldn't have put it better myself. Perhaps we should include that in the article Paskari 16:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The above text was then edited three times in December 2002, ending up as follows:

The Sunday Times ranks the University of Southampton 5th for among the Russell Group of specialist research universities for research quality, bettered only by the University of London, Oxford, Cambridge and Warwick. Southampton's teaching quality is regarded as one of the best in the country and arguably the best of the Red Brick universities. The university has a strong technical and technological pedigree and has long been regarded as one of Britain's best science universities and the best at engineering, with the only HEFC 5* rated Engineering faculty in the country. Southampton's post-graduate economics and business qualifications are in high demand internationally, largely because of the university's reputation in econometrics and quantitative methods.

The University of Southampton has close links with America's MIT. Southampton's student population grew a lot in the 1990s to become one of the UK's largest universities and also one of the most in demand. It occupies a spacious campus on the south English coast.

Part of the above material has subsequently been incorporated into the article. Which still needs a lot of work, incidentally, and I suppose I should be doing that work myself, to be honest. Maybe later... -- Oliver P. 00:11 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think that most of the above is wide of the mark. The top ten universities are markedly different for science, engineering and arts. Most people would rank Oxford and Cambridge as the top two UK universities for classics and in the top five for virtually arts subjects. Nobody would rank Oxford in the top ten for engineering and they would struggle to get into the top twenty. Cambridge is much stronger in engineering and there is certainly top rank science at Oxford but pretty everyone would rank Manchester in the top five for science as well. I don't think anyone would rank Warwick there and London University is a totally different animal, UCL and Imperial are effectively separate universities. Southampton has always had a first rank engineering department and a middling to mediocre arts and law side. It has a medical school which in itself is significant.

So it really depends on the subject area. Southampton is in the top five for engineering. Tim Berners-Lee would not be a part time prof at a mediocre university. The electronics and aeronautics departments are world class. It is not an understatement to use the term 'leading'. In the Engineering field Southampton outranks Oxford. The studies cites are all average measures of the university courses. I don't think that makes any sense. Southampton is a world class engineering university. Oxford is world class in classics. Both are mediocre in the other's specialty. When determining leading one looks to the areas of excellence where the institution leads. There is no institution that is world class in every field. --217.204.89.130 00:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Endowment

Most other universities indicate their endowment, I e-mailed the university but they refuse to tell me how much their endowment is, does anyone know? Paskari 16:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

University ratings

(I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.)

There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#University ratings. Timrollpickering 23:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Managed to verify most of the recent rankings from all reliable and unique major newspaper rankings (Times, Guarduan and Sunday Times). Can't verify 2006 and 2005 for Times at the moment. Once found, they will be added. At least this shows that Soton uni is improving year after year. They are on their way achieve their ambition of being a top 10 uni in the UK in the near future [from a neutral point of view through deduction from the tables]. --Dedkenny66 02:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Reassessment

Thanks for posting over at WikiProject Universities about a reassessment. After reading through the article, I think it needs to stay as B-Class. It's not to the level of an A-Class article yet because it lacks a level of completeness and thoroughness as compared to other of the university articles at that level. As it stands now, big chunks of the article are lists (nothing wrong with lists, but you need more than that). I'm sure the peer review you've requested will highlight things like this, too.

In addition, it can't be a Good Article without going through the GA process. You'll have to list the article there for review if you want it promoted to GA-Class (it doesn't have to be GA-Class to reach A-Class, although most A articles are, in fact, GA too).

If you've got any questions, feel free to contact me. Cheers! Esrever 03:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Style note - capitalisation

It's a minor point, but I just noticed a mix of "University" and "university" throughout the page. I'd propose that when we're talking about THIS university as an institution, and using the definite article, we should capitalise ("the University blah blah") and when talking about universities in general, or using the indefinite article, we shouldn't ("is a university", "this university is one of many that..."). Any comments? Srpnor (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - History (2008 Rebranding)

With the rebrand still fresh, it's clear that there are some rather strong opinions re: the loss of the dolphin affecting editors of this page. I have tried to keep that subsection of the history sticking to the facts presented by the notable citations, but the edit history shows some rather strong deviations in either direction. This article needs a close (ideally external) eye for the near future to keep this encyclopaedic, not a place to spin away criticism or rant about Adolf Finn's demise. In particular, currently I think the term "disappointing" needs revision by someone less involved---to whom is it a dissapointment? That's highly objective. (Full disclosure: I am alumni. I am not an "external, less involved" arbitrator here, hence this call for general NPOV attention.) --LionsPhil (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of this kind of ping-ponging; there is effectively an edit war over which adjective to use regarding the reaction. --LionsPhil (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

On 4th February 2008, the university rebranded itself, and changed the logo from the 'dolphin' to one containing only text. Despite a protest group on Facebook, [10] which exceeded 2,000 members, the rebranding still went ahead.

I'd question the appropriateness paragraph. The re-brand might be notable (and if so, perhaps we should detail prior rebrandings, including the one that introduced 'Adolph'), but mentioning the Facebook "protest" just smacks of pettiness. It might have been notable if the rebranding had caused weeks of industrial action, but a protest group on a social networking site comprising well under 10% of the University's members (indeed, if you consider that alumni are members of the University, the figures look even worse!) hardly constitutes a fact worthey of encyclopaedic note. I, personally, don't think much of the new brand either, but then that's not really the point of an encyclopaedic article is it? Srpnor (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Southampton Solent University.

Not to be confused with Southampton Solent University.

Is this necessary? Who confuses the two? Timrollpickering (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's not as though there is an example of this on any other University pages (e.g. University of Liverpool Liverpool John Moores University) Srpnor (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find solent students get mixed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.151.116.237 (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree (not with the Solent students being confused but with it being unnecessary). Deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamtheabelman (talk • contribs)

Crest?

Rather ridiculously, I can't find any online imagery of the University's crest. If someone can track such down, and sort out the copyright, it probably belongs in the infobox, as for, say, the University of Warwick. (Apparently, we sell cufflinks with it on. Fancy that.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LionsPhil (talk • contribs) 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. 10:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)~ Nun12

Restructuring

It might be a good idea if someone were to actually have a look at properly restructuring the whole University of Southampton page and make it more akin to that of Warwick, Imperial, etc. where we can see a proper structure and layout rather than a hodge-podge of information stuck together. -- (A.szczep) 18:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Separate Page for notable people

I have created a separate page for notable people who have studied and taught at the University. I thought it would be worthwhile as the previous list was not as comprehensive as it could be and to bring the article more in line with other university. In addition, it was recommend in the Wikipedia:Peer review/University of Southampton/archive1

I was thinking of taking a bash at other parts of the article too, as recommended in the review, and trying to include something on the new RAE results. -- x Felicity x —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

RAE update

The most recent RAE was published in December 2008, this should be updated in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.186.6 (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Organisation and Notable Alumni Sections

The Organisation section needs description about when the schools and centres were founded, research groups in each school, activities and notable events and achievements regarding more schools.

I think the Notable alumni section needs to be organised better and include maybe degree(s) studied.Dedkenny66 21:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Done(FlickScully 20:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlickScully (talk • contribs)

Organisation Section

Is it just me, or does everything from "School of Electronics and Computer Science" down in the organisation section read like a series of self-promotional press releases? Definitely needs to be edited for neutrality and notability? Srpnor (talk) 08:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think a ECS should have their own separate page. This may allow a casual reader of the main article to not get the mistaken impression that it the only thing that goes on at the university ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FlickScully (talk • contribs) 21:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Created separate page for ECS as seems to recomended by WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamtheabelman (talk • contribs)

Research Institutes (School of Law)

The following Specialist Teaching and Research Centres/Institutes hosted by the Law faculty at the University of Southampton have not been included in the list on the main page:

- Information Technology and the Law (ILAWS)

- Health Ethics and Law Network (HEAL)

- Centre for Law, Ethics and Globalisation (CLEG)

- Centre for European Law (CEL)

These were created fairly recently, such as CLEG (2009), ILAWS (2006) and HEAL (2005). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmkimuk (talk • contribs) 17:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Academic Ranking Chart

The table/chart that shows the domestic and worldwide university rankings seemss unnecessarily large in proportion to the article. Couldn't the name of the ranking be shown vertically and the years shown horizontally? This would save space and look better without seeming to waste space due to the fact that the Times ranking has been in operation so much longer than anything else. See University of Bristol's ranking chart for comparison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmkimuk (talk • contribs) 12:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have had a go at arranging horizontally but becomes pretty ugly (as the number of integers required in each year changes, the width of columns become inconsistent). I prefer it as is (but i did create it so i might be a little biased) --Iamtheabelman 23:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

5. Independent Complete University Guide supported by PriceWaterHouseCoopers appears to be the latest new Ranking Table out this year. Perhaps that could be included in the vertical table.

See, for example, the University of Bristol's wikipedia page for a comparison and maybe a blueprint to base Soton's on.

17:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that a graph might be a better way to display all the information over time, with vertical axis on the left hand side for UK rankings and a vertical axis on the right hand side for world rankings. Might look better than the big chart, but I am not sure how to contain all the reference information in such a graph?--Iamtheabelman 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Photos

1. It would be nice to see some photos of the University. Preferably next to a written description in the main text. For instance, there are no photos of the Hartley Library or other campuses such as Boldrewood, Winchester School of Art, and the new archaeology buildings at Avenue (not the current bleak one next to the description of the students union). Others to include would be some more of the highfield campus (maybe with specific department buidings and interiors), old and new student union building, the Cube nightclub, Stag's Head and Union bars, botanical gardens and scenery (the current photo of the garden is awful!), events at the University, the new optoelectronics building, the fire that destroyed the old optoelectronics building, Nuffield theatre, Turner Sims Concert Hall, Hansard Art Gallery, Jubilee sports centre, other sports fields/facilities, nice photos of halls of residence (especially South Stoneham House) including Connaught Hall and Glen Eyre Complex.

Feel free to upload your own pictures (if you have any). There are some great shots on Flickr of some of the stuff you have described but I can not find any that have no rights reserved.?--Iamtheabelman 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Alumni Section

2. Was Dame Judith Mayhew really a student? I think she may have been faculty in the Law school.

Corrected--Iamtheabelman 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

3. On the main page where it lists alumni, someone has written: "and musician's Brian Eno and Edd Gibson". Edd Gibson is in a band that recently released an album and yes, should be on the alumni section since his band is on wikipedia. But he should not be on the main page section should he? That section should be reserved for the most celebrated Soton alumni. Also, the change was not made using correct grammar. On this section also, perhaps there should be a link to "British Lion" and "Wales" for Mark Taylor. He isn't exactly world famous nor do many people know what the British Lions are.

Corrected- When I wrote the original section neither of these people were included, i tried to revert the change when Taylor was added but it got reverted back. Feel free get stuck in and edit this stuff yourself.--Iamtheabelman 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

4. How about including the degrees studied and year graduated for the alumni section?

When i was building the alumni page i had this in mind but it turned out to be really tricky so i concentrated on trying to complete the list. Feel free to get stuck in and add this information.--Iamtheabelman 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Soton Tab

The outlet is not an official news outlet for the University and therefore should not have a section devoted to it. A better system would be to have a sentence mentioning the website, such as that found about the Tab in the University of Cambridge page.

Will delete on that ground — Preceding unsigned comment added by WessexScene (talk • contribs) 23:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The content was merged in following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soton Tab. I will not revert the removal, although I would question the appropriateness of users connected to the competing Wessex Scene getting involved in the coverage of their competitor due to the rather obvious potential conflict of interest. While questions can be asked on if an entire section was over-the-top, as it stands Wessex Scene has its own article, which does not presently pass the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. In the meantime, I have soft-blocked this account for violating the username policy. CT Cooper · talk 23:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Updated Research section

I have recently updated the Research Groups/Centre/Institute section with a more eye friendy layout featuring the lists displayed as collapsable tables. However, the current problem I am facing is that the actual institutes themselves are showing in bold and I am clueless of how to stop this. It's fine at the moment but if someone can help, feel free. Rafmarham (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge per AFD

I am merging Institute of Sound and Vibration Research to this article per this AFD and per the tag that was placed on that article - as a result of the AFD.

Of course, I am assuming this will be no problem with this article's editors. If it seems to be a problem go ahead and revert this merge and discuss. I am guessing the discussion should take place on this talk page, if there is one. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not really a site though. It's offices are on the Highfield Campus. Would it be appropriate to have a "Important Departments" section? --Rikkiprince (talk) 11:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on University of Southampton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed new page and redirections of other pages

I propose that because none of the main University campuses (Highfield Campus, Avenue Campus or Boldrewood Campus) are really notable in their own right, a new page could be created, similar to Campuses of the University of Nottingham, which merges in the current info from these pages, and that these pages are then changed to redirects. Anyone have any objections?

Doom halo (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. It may be worth tagging them with the appropriate {{merge}} templates as I notice there's nothing on those articles or their talk pages regarding this discussion. Waggers TALK 09:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)