Talk:Department of Pharmacology, University College London

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Higher education

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles

@Diannaa:

Untitled

Thamks for letting me know about you deletion. It would be very helpful if you could tell me which bits you deleted. The problem arises because the material derives from a history of the department that was put together by senior members of the department. mainly by me, Donald Jenkinson. David Brown and Trevor Smart. It appeared as a page on UCL's server but that has now been deleted by our IT people as a result of changes in departmental organisation. Some of that material was used by my colleague Trevor Smart for his piece in pA2 online. If you can say which bits you object to, I can easily alter those bits. Alternatively, there will be no problem in getting permission from the British Pharmacological Society to reproduce them -please tell me how I should communicate their permission to you. David Colquhoun (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a copy of the deleted material via email. If the copyright holder wishes to release this material to Wikipedia under license, please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Thanks for the helpful email. I replied. It's easy to sort this out. But the post is in early stages -much more work to do on it. David Colquhoun (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably easier (since it's only one paragraph) to re-write the content in your own words. In the meantime please be sure that all material you add is copyright compliant. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: The present state of the draft contains several links to pictures that have not yet been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. They soon will be, so please don't remove the limks. David Colquhoun (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure the images are properly sourced and compatibly licensed, or they will likely be deleted almost immediately. If the images already appear elsewhere online you will need to prove that you have the legal right to upload them. Please see the instructions at WP:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a sample permission email at WP:Consent. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG, Zppix, and SwisterTwister: This post is now ready to be submitted to the editors David Colquhoun (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very eager to see more articles on famous departments, such as this one, though I (and the other WPedians who have commented) want to draw the line at world-famous, not just notable. The technical WP definition of notable in this field is absurdly loose. If we're meant for the reader, we want to write articles people will want to read-- people outside the department. I think that amounts to the 2 or 3 acknowledged best in the world. There are a few I want to do, the ones I know best at Princeton and Berkeley. Ideally, ones where someone outside of the department has published about the department's history.

This is therefore not ideal, for too much of it depends on a history by people associated with the department. But it's certainly good enough. Like many UK departments, at least the early history is primarily a history of the successive famous people who led the department--most US departments are at least somewhat different. The one I know to have excellent third party sources is Berkeley's Biochemistry Dept.-- and even there, a single person, Wendell Stanley, is considered the principal individual responsible for its foundation.

I've approved it, of course. As always, there remain the following problems. at least if this is to become a Featured Article. To start with:

Every significant claim must have a source. If all the material in a paragraph is from the same source, the reference marker can goat the end, except for living people where we require sentence-by sentence referencing. In particular, we need a specific claim for "first" In its absence, list the dates for the others.
There needs a reference for each person that indicates what their principal speciality is. For those with WP articles, refs from the WP articles usually will do. For those without, the ideal thing to do is to write them. DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{reply to|DGG}} Thanks very much for those commeents. Th history of a department is surely the history of its achievements. ie. the history of the people who made the advances. I noticed that you've made at least one deletion (but where do I find the edit history?). I thought that I'd documented everything -which bits are still documented inadequately? David Colquhoun (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]