Talk:University of York

Rankings in the lead

An anonymous editor keeps removing the sentence summarising the major rankings in the lead and replacing it with references only to the QS rankings. In only giving a single viewpoint where multiple viewpoints are available, this appears to be in violation of WP:NPOV. Rather than edit-warring, I have flagged the statement to point to this discussion. The WP:UNIGUIDE guidelines states:

In the lead, do not use rankings to synthesize an image of the institution, whether good or bad. Give one factual statement summarising overall "most recent" rankings obtained in key surveys (for example, "In 2010, institution 'A' has been ranked #3 by The Economist, #5 by The New York Times and #8 by Financial Times."). In the lead, do not give the sub factor rankings -- details like "ranked #x in placements" or "ranked #3 in research" should not be the lead, and only selectively for major factors in the article anywhere.

This makes it clear that the statement must summarise the major rankings, not select one favourite one. In its current form, the lead is cherry-picking an editor's favourite ranking rather than presenting the major rankings in a neutral manner. If there are no objections made here, I will revert to the summary sentence and remove the POV tag. Robminchin (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Following no objection here, I inserted a form of the sentence that complied with the guidelines above. The same anonymous editor has reverted this without participation in the discussion. I have therefore restored the tag and invite the anonymous editor using IP 46.18.177.138 again to join in this discussion. Robminchin (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

As no comments have been received, I will return the text to my summary sentence. Any further reverts by the anonymous user without discussion here will be reported as potential WP:disruptive editing. Robminchin (talk) 06:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The same anonymous editor, 46.18.177.138, has now reverted this again without participating in the discussion. I again invite them to discuss this here and explain why they feel the WP:UNIGUIDE guidelines should not apply here. Robminchin (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

As this is the same user and they do not seem interested in discussion I suggest we revert back to the stable version. We should probably pursue a block since I believe the page was previously protected due to these edits.Aloneinthewild (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I have rewritten the lead to summarise the "most recent" rankings, but 46.18.177.138 does not seem to understand the edit summaries or the UNIGUIDE and keeps re-adding previous rankings to the lead. The information seems accurate but misplaced and without citation so I have expanded the section on academic rankings and included the non-"most recent" rankings there instead of the lead, but if it is again restored to the lead without an explaination for its inclusion it could be viewed as disruptive editing. EdwardUK (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The note on the page is (or was – as it keeps being removed) very clear as are the edit summaries and the comments on this talk page – all of which are being ignored – and it is clear from the edit history as far back as September 2015 that disruptive editing to add past QS rankings to the lead is not going to stop – a user block may be the only way to stop it happening and also page protection (which I have requested) is needed as it looks like another IP address is also being used for similar editing. EdwardUK (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

It seems quite likely the other IP address is the same user. This clearly (to my mind) meets the definition at Wikipedia:Disruptive Editing. It's not clear how to deal with this kind of disruption, however. It looks like we might need to post something at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which seems rather complicated. I've reverted it again for now, but my home ISP can't reach Wikipedia at the moment (!) so I only have limited access. Robminchin (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I have put in another page-protection request as the editing has resumed since the previous protection expired. EdwardUK (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The same anonymous user has been vandalising York content on the Sutton Trust and Russell Group pages. These have been reverted by me and another user and warnings issued on their talk page. It seems that blocking them from editing here has meant they've taken their campaign elsewhere! Robminchin (talk) 02:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

As there appears to have been some editing back-and-forth about this, I thought I would open this discussion thread and invite Blake- and Woodopal to participate. The practice on most UK university pages is to have the coat of arms at the top of the infobox (using the image_name= parameter) and the logo at the bottom (using the logo= parameter), e.g. King's College London, University of Oxford, University of Cambridge. Generally, this is done except where there is no coat of arms, e.g. University College London. This article currently, and rather oddly, has the logo in both positions, meaning it is shown twice. I would favour following standard practice and having both the coat of arms and the logo in the infobox. Robminchin (talk) 05:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. I added the coat of arms a little while back to bring the page in line with other university pages, as you mentioned. There was talk a few years ago about the main image (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:University_of_York/Archive_1#Main_image) where the main issues seemed to be that the image wasn't the official coat of arms and that the coat of arms is intended for official use only. The following link outlines that this is indeed the official coat of arms: https://www.york.ac.uk/staff/external-relations/brand/logo/ and, to quote Nicholas Jackson, the University's visual identity guidelines don't apply to us - they're internal procedures to be followed for official University publications. I've added the coat of arms back for now but this can be altered if blake- has any other concerns. Woodopal (talk) 01:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on University of York. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211024227/http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/vco/chancellor.htm to http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/vco/chancellor.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305032919/http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/presspr/40thanniversary/vcs.htm to http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/presspr/40thanniversary/vcs.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150122002619/http://www.york.ac.uk/colleges/derwent/about/history/ to http://www.york.ac.uk/colleges/derwent/about/history/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150122003603/http://www.york.ac.uk/colleges/langwith/about/history/ to http://www.york.ac.uk/colleges/langwith/about/history/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150122001326/http://www.york.ac.uk/colleges/alcuin/about/history/ to http://www.york.ac.uk/colleges/alcuin/about/history/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150122003111/http://www.york.ac.uk/colleges/vanbrugh/about/history/sirjohn/ to http://www.york.ac.uk/colleges/vanbrugh/about/history/sirjohn/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150122000726/http://www.york.ac.uk/colleges/wentworth/about/historyofthecollege/ to http://www.york.ac.uk/colleges/wentworth/about/historyofthecollege/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211024227/http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/vco/chancellor.htm to http://www.york.ac.uk/admin/vco/chancellor.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/pdfs/univ07ten.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Splitting Proposal

I would like to propose that we split the Campus East section into its own article as there are various subjects which I believe should have a mention such as the Piazza building and Ron Cooke Hub. Adding them to the main university article would make the article too lengthy and they are not notable enough for their own articles. I have already completed a new page which includes information from the Expansion section on this article but thought it best to ask before I publish the page. Also apologises for any mistakes im still relatively new to Wikipedia TheUpperNile (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

In principle, yes, although this depends on whether Campus East is sufficiently notable in its own right – possibly consider having an article on the campus as a whole rather than on a section of it. If you have the article in draft space, you can share the link here prior to publishing it to main space so other editors can look at it and give advice. Robminchin (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Here is the proposed draft Draft:University of York, Campus East TheUpperNile (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)