Jump to content

Talk:University of Leeds/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Category?

Wondering if there is a need for Category:University of Leeds? --Salix alba (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There is Category:University of Leeds alumni for graduates. —Whouk (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Category:University of Leeds now exists. --Salix alba (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Saint marks residences

This article should be cleaned up and merged here. Hall articles have to be well written to be saved from deletion. They have to show notability. --Bduke 01:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The clock is ticking, 83 hours before delation (unless someone removes the prod tag). Not convinced its even notable enough to be listed on main page. --Salix alba (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see any reason why this article should be merged into the main University of Leeds article. And if it is, every major residence should be mentioned alongside it. At the moment only Bodington (the largest) is mentioned. If that and Saint Marks were mentioned, the residences would be unfairly represented. So no merge unless you can detail all the major residences also. Mushintalk 12:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes - there may be a case for listing the major halls of residence in this article but probably not in any great detail, and the separate article is certainly unwarranted. —Whouk (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Cognition

Might someone give me a lead for names of researchers in the Engineering departments at Leeds? In the 1980s, Electronic Engineering Times published an article about un-named researcher(s) who hypothesised that Cognition is a form of compression. I believe that enough time has passed to merit recognition for the researcher who had this insight. --Ancheta Wis 10:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Location

I've deleted the first four paragraphs of the location part of the article as they were just about Leeds and had nothing to do with the University Dupont Circle 20:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

People split

I think it would be a good idea to split off the notable people section as the list is becoming a bit big for the article, and I'm sure there are other people who could be added to the list. This has occurred in other articles so it wouldn't be unusual. I'll go through with it unless anyone has any objections. Cheers, mattbr30 00:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. -- Siobhan Hansa 15:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Not so sure, you search in Leeds uni for alumni, splitting it is unnecessary complication, each of the people have their own articles anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.22.71.52 (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Muslim prayer room

Sorry if I am being dim - what's the importance? --129.11.77.197 16:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's notable for the amount of money that was spent on it... 81.97.207.151 16:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge of University of Leeds Conference Auditorium

I see this has been proposed and I strongly support it. This article is not notable as a stand-alone article. --Bduke (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

  • merge: I agree that the conference auditorium is probably not notable in its own right. As far as I'm aware, it hasn't been the subject of multiple non-trivial independent publications. Papa November (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I dont think there even needs to be any mention of it. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.80.229 (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It should go - reads as the specification of the conference office. If it were the history of the West Yorkshire Playhouse, it could stay... --Registrarmike (talk) 21:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I cut it down to two sentences and merged it in. I don't think it adds much to the article, so feel free to remove it completely. The whole Facilities section could do with a good pruning. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The Who

I think something about "Live at Leeds" should be mentioned in the article. I mean, the university was the place where, arguably, the greatest live rock album ever was produced. DEfinitely. Probably under the history section or something. Thhhh (talk) 03:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

History

Is the History section just a little too general. It seems to put alot of emphasis on the University being open to people of every religion (even though this was the case in many universities other than Oxbridge). It also has little about University of Leeds' own history (which I know too little about to contribute), ending as it does with the granting of the charter in 1904. NJJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.198.174 (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2009 (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 23:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right that it would improve Wikipedia to have some consistency about this. I suspect it may be difficult to get editors to stop listing others as well though - the nature of volunteer editing makes it much more likely that you'll get partisans editing articles, and there are legitimate reasons for quoting rankings where a university stands out for good or bad. Perhaps picking a few rankings that get quoted on all the UK university articles and then encourage editors to also quote rankings that show something remarkable (any "top ten" or "bottom three" position in a reasonably well heard of guide perhaps?). Not all the universities are trying to do the same thing, and highest and lowest positions in more specialized rankings aren't necessarily unimportant just because the ranking isn't important for all universities. The Times Higher Education Supplement rankings would seem to be a must use. Quoting for within the UK for all universities and world rankings for those in, say, the top 250 worldwide. Not sure which other rankings would be appropriate UK wide. -- Siobhan Hansa 03:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

RAE info is well out of date. Have removed direct reference to 2001 RAE being the "most recent" but needs an overhaul to include 2008 info. Also need to tread carefully when it comes to individual depts plugging themselves, as undermines overall credibilty and risks being both counter productive and at odds with wiki neutrality principles.--Robinmarsh (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

2nd Largest University

This doesn't appear to be true (even though the university claims it). The claim seems to be based on number of students and both the University of Manchester and the Open University have a larger number. I'm guessing the are not counting the Open University. Should it be changed to 3rd (I guess there would be no reference then) or removed?

Actually the claim could be changed to single site university thinking about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.70.52.5 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Pages on individual buildings

I noticed a page has been made on the Parkingson Building. I am intending to make a page on the Roger Stevens building (which given its notability as a peice of Brutalist architecture, I would say warrants a page) and others should I be able to find enough information. Largely I am struggling to find any information about the buildings, the University have little on their website so I think it could be difficult to cite. Has anyone any ideas?Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I have recently started using Wikipedia; a few friends and I intended to really step up the pages relating to the University of Leeds to try and improve the page towards a quality article. A Roger Stevens Building page would be a great addition to this work so far. We too have experienced problems gathering information on the Parkinson Building and more recently The Great Hall. Some things we tried was to scour the university website for any shreds of information and general searches such as "history of....", "Parkinson Building history" etc. Good luck with the page and finding of information, I'm sure it will be challenging but worthwhile. Your images have really helped transform the main university page, thank you. (Freedomflag (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC))
Here are a couple of books that have a lot of architectural information about the U of L (and Leeds in general):
  • Wrathmell, Susan (2005). Leeds (Pevsner Architectural Guides). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-10736-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Leach, Peter (2009). Yorkshire West Riding: Leeds, Bradford and the North. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12665-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
The Wrathmell book is a (largeish) paperback with lots of good photos; Leach and Pevsner is a fairly expensive hardback covering a much bigger area; I think that most of what the latter says about the University comes from Wrathmell. Waterstones in Albion Street should have copies of both if you want to have a look.
The Brotherton Library ought to have an article but I've never got round to writing it.
--GuillaumeTell 21:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Tolkien

I removed Tolkien from the list of alumni in the lead. On further inspection, I see that this was based on a reference from the University of Leeds website, which does indeed list Tolkien as a Leeds alumnus. This is contradicted, however, by another referenced page from the University of Leeds website that lists him only as a former member of staff. Judging from 'Who Was Who' and the 'Dictionary of National Biography' it is the latter reference that is correct, as Tolkien was a student at Oxford, and neither source suggests that he studied at Leeds. ThomasL (talk) 11:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic comment removed from article

An anonymous IP 129.11.76.215 (user talk:129.11.76.215) posted the following at the bottom of the article's lead:

The University has also been restricted from editing wikipedia articles without a login, as its IP address proved the source of repeat warnings for malicious alterations.

No way is this an appropriate sentence to include in the article, but I thought that it might be of interest here. --GuillaumeTell 15:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I have replaced the logo in the article, to accurately reflect the design guidelines of the university. Specifically, the logo must not appear in its own bounding box, and should instead appear directly on top of the page background. I have therefore changed it to a black vector logo with a transparent background, instead of the beige box it used previously. I have also added a fair use rationale to the image. Thanks Papa November (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe that we should have both the arms of the university and the logo, in order to be coherent with other university pages which follow this. NJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.198.174 (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I have generated/made the university arms which have now been added the university page. I agree, whilst understanding the logo is the main emblem of the university, in order to be consistent with other pages and universities of similar standing such as University of Manchester, University of Birmingham and University of Sheffield, Leeds should have it's own coat of arms displayed. Hope everyone likes it and supports the change. Freedomflag (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


Please note - the University Crest (coat of arms) is used for ceremonial purposes only and must not be placed on any website without prior permission - this has not been granted in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.154.139 (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it not possible to place both the University's coat of arms as well as the official logo, similar to Duke University's page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_University —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.79.0 (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Revert some edits

Some edits have taken place that I regard as counter productive and I think discussion would have been better before instigating the changes. The images used are not as well chosen as ones previously used while the infobox no longer displays the coat of arms. The problem I have in reverting it is that the history facility only lets you see the code for the part of the page that changed in the edit which as you can appreciate makes it very dificult. Anyone else support such reverts. Mtaylor848 (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and as a student here I support the fact the coat of arms is used in this article. I can also verify that whilst an editor pointed to the university only using it for ceremonial purposes, it is actually also used on branded clothing in the student union, therefore this is a clear rational for free use on here. Furthermore, I also believe it enhances the quality of the infobox and gives greater credibility to the page. Hope people agree.

Absolutely, whilst the coat of arms may be used for ceremonial purposes (according to an editor), as an encyclopaedic article, I feel that this important university symbol should be included. Additionally, other UK university pages, in particular those of 'Redbrick' universities include their respective coats of arms; it is thus logical to include the UoL coat of arms to ensure consistency.

Use of the crest

The University does not permit the use of the crest on any website without prior permission. The use of our logo is permitted on this Wikipedia entry but the crest is not to be used.

See discussion above. Please do not keep removing it. Keith D (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

We won't need to if you stop putting it back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.67.13 (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion doesn't really explain much. The university policy is to forbid use of the crest without approval, so they clearly won't be happy about it appearing here. Therefore, we need to be absolutely clear about where we stand legally regarding this image. The image description page needs to be much more rigorous. At present, it just states that the source is "own work", which is incorrect. The image is actually a derivative (by the uploader) of an existing work. The question here is whether the original crest is it still under copyright.
If the copyright on the crest has expired then the image description page must be updated accordingly, and a link to the original crest image must be included. The university would not be legally able to forbid copying, modification or distribution of the image in that case... however, trademark law would still prevent other organisations using the crest commercially.
On the other hand, if the crest is still under copyright, then the derivative is a copyright infringement and must be deleted. A low-resolution copy of the original could still be uploaded locally to Wikipedia (not Commons!) and used under a fair use clause. Papa November (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The uploader is not very active and has not been on recently. Keith D (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The above link refers to internal University policy - it is nothing to do with permissions or copyright. The University changed from an older logo (a stylised version of the crest) to the logo featuring an image of the Parkinson Tower several years ago. The 'Identity Management' pages are there to inform staff which typeface/colour/logo they should use in particular circumstances. The only reason the page states "Such use of the crest must be approved to ensure that it is used appropriately" is because the University wanted the new logo to be used consistently across all schools and departments rather than the mishmash of logos that was used previously (see here) Cavie78 (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of policy, the University reserves the right of use of its heraldic crest - copyright of which will remain until the University is no more - for ceremonial purposes only. The University is identified by its logo, not its crest, and given you guys are producing a page about the University of Leeds the logo should be used, not the crest. If you insist on representing the crest on this page then do so in a historic section, maybe also including the round logo it used to use and the two other variants that came between that and the current logo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.67.13 (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The logo is just that - a logo. The coat of arms is used for ceremonial purposes because it still is, and always will be, the University's official crest. The logo appears in the infobox along with the coat of arms per other UK university articles on Wikipedia. Cavie78 (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

And is this Wikipedia entry an example of ceremonial use? You seem to wish to place the crest in the infobox simply because other universities have it, rather than regard the wishes of the institution you are writing about. Why? If the University of Leeds does not wish you to put its heraldic crest on this page, what makes you think you have a right to mis-represent its image? Rather than simply putting it back there each time think first about what this page is for. The University uses its logo now, not the crest, and the logo is a trademark registered in multiple jurisdictions. Please stop putting the crest back on the page (other than perhaps the suggestion of a historic section) and save everyone some time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.67.13 (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The reason the crest is used here is because it is the offical crest of the University - it's not here because it's used for ceremonial purposes rather that is why the University uses it for ceremonial purposes. The crest has remained constant throughout the University's life, the logo has not because it is just a corporate logo. You are quite right that the logo should be in the infobox (which it is) but the crest is there because it represents a more permanent University identity (this article is about the University not the current status of the University) If you wish to discuss the issue allow time for other editors to have their say on this talk page, if there is consensus for the removal of the crest it will be removed, if not it will stay, in the meantime please do not keep removing it. Cavie78 (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone address my original question about the copyright status of the logo? If it was first published before 1923, then the copyright has expired. The university has no legal ability to oppose its reproduction if this is the case, provided that trademark law is not infringed. As it stands, the image description page is inadequate. Papa November (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
The University was granted its charter in 1904 and I'm pretty the crest dates from them but I'll see if I can find a reliable source that says for certain. Cavie78 (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Editors from this University

Apologies for posting this here, as it is a bit off-topic, but I have a question relating to an article that editors from the University of Leeds may be able to help me with. If anyone reading this is a faculty member or student and is willing to help, could you please contact me on my talk page or by e-mail? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've had two replies, so I should have enough to go on for now. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on University of Leeds. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 05:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Nobel prize winners

Is the Wool_Industries_Research_Association associated with the University of Leeds, or was associated in the past. There is no mention of the link in the article and I think that's why 2 of the Nobel prize winners were removed. please provide a citation if you can Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on University of Leeds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 04:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:University_of_Leeds/Archive_1&oldid=1047821600"