Talk:Science and Technology Facilities Council

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Science and Technology Facilities Council article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Science Low‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science 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.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:SciTechLogo.png

Image:SciTechLogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SciTech

I've never heard of Science and Technology Facilities Council being called SciTech. STFC maybe, but never SciTech. I don't think either of these nicknames should be on this page - a small number of people informally refering to an organisation by a nickname doesn't warrant a wikipedia entry. The text implies everyone in or associated with the council knows this alternative name. That's not true so it's not relevant for an encylopedia. J bellingham 15:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may never have heard them refered to as SciTech, but I do, regularly. I don't work for the Council, instead I am at University, studying Physics, and Rutherford is often mentioned when placement years are discussed, and pretty much whenever it's mentioned, so is 'SciTech', not the STFC, or anything similar. It would appear to me, (assuming that you do work for the council), that this is one of those rare circumstances when the nickname is widely used outside the organisation, but not within it. _TheIslander 17:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I broke a protocol by deleting without the discussion first - I wasn't sure if any discussions here are notified to editors on the page. I do work for the Council. I manage a large EC funded project so have lots of European contacts. I also manage a group for new graduates and students in RAL and so I meet nearly all the placement students. I have honestly never heard of SciTech and still don't think it should be re-added to the entry. J bellingham 22:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also work at STFC and have contact with several partner organisations and I agree with J bellingham, I have never heard Scitech being used, it is always referred to as "STFC". pffinch 18:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I work for STFC too and i have heard it called scitech, although this name is not commonly used. In fact the web-site http://www.stfc.ac.uk is also http://www.scitech.ac.uk/. A google search for scitech also gives STFC as the first result. Its certainly not just a nickname. However, as is becoming increasingly obvious over the past few months, just because you may work for STFC doesn't mean you necessarily know how it conducts its business, so i may be completly wrong about all of this :o) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.79.162.143 (talk) 10:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard it called scitech and I spend a lot of time at RAL and Daresbury and even occasionally at Swindon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.176.5 (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I work at the university of Warwick and have used the Daresbury Laboratory a number of times. At no point has anyone there - or any physicist I've ever come across - used "SciTech" as an abbreviation for the STFC. STFC is the comventional abbreviation and is used by the organisation itself.--Lateralis (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, massive coincidences aside, I too now work for the STFC, and you're certainly right, within the STFC, 'SciTech' is never used, which is plain bizzare, because outside the STFC (in my circles at least), it is. Odd indeed... _Talk Islander 21:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Budget cuts

I think the budget cuts should be mentioned but this is an encloypedia - it's not meant to be a platform for current political debate in a subjective tone. Now your MP, that's another matter. J bellingham (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I think the budget cuts should be mentioned. The funding black hole can be described without getting into a political debate. However, the financial crisis did have a significant effect both in terms of funding projects in the UK and damaging the UK's reputation as a good international partner in multinational collaborations.--Lateralis (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"but also a consequence of the Council's decision to concentrate on its strengths and try to reduce activity in areas in which it was not a world leader." You're joking, right? Is this from their PR dept? Cambion (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jodrell Bank

"This was not a genuine proposal, simply a misunderstanding, possibly leading from an over simplification." - this is inaccurate, presumably simply a misunderstanding due to over simplification. ;-) The mainstay of Jodrell Bank Observatory is eMerlin; without that, the observatory would very likely close. That's not to say that "Jodrell Bank" would go away completely - as there are a lot of academics based in Manchester - but the observatory likely would. This needs further research. (Disclaimer: I work there...) Mike Peel (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest jumping in and editing. :-) I think most us in the community are so dismayed at events surrounding projects PPARC used to cover and current plans we don't feel able to edit the STFC page impartially. You are perhaps still new enough to not have ill feeling. I'd suggest rephrasing the other PR sentences too. Cambion (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Science_and_Technology_Facilities_Council for why I don't really want to edit directly. I may edit the page if no-one else can, but it would need checking to make sure that it's NPOV... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, ridiculous of me to think you wouldn't have been annoyed by them. Sorry.Cambion (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case studies

From what I understand of STFC they've been involved in loads of work with NASA, CERN etc. Would it be worthwhile to add a section showcasing their work? Ssilson (talk) 11:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]