Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/First women admitted to degrees at the University of Oxford/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

First women admitted to degrees at the University of Oxford

edit

First women admitted to degrees at the University of Oxford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for featured list because it is well-sourced and, IMO, meets the basic requirements of a featured list. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • Great work and a topic kinda close to my heart as my son currently attends one of the formerly all-female colleges, but I feel like you need to explain the set-up of these women receiving degrees for the first time in a bit more detail, specifically the fact that the first degrees were awarded in 1920 but the women in the table "graduated" anything up to 41 years earlier. Presumably the degree awards were in essence retrospective? Also, how did the women originally "graduate" without receiving a degree (most people reading the article would understand the concept of "graduating" as "receiving their degree". Did the earlier women essentially just, I dunno, leave.....?)
  • Some more nit-picky comments:
  • Image caption: "First women colleges at Oxford" => "First women's colleges at Oxford"
  • "Before 1920, it is estimated that around 4,000 women studied at Oxford" => "Tt is estimated that around 4,000 women studied at Oxford before 1920"
  • " The first woman unofficial accepted at Oxford" => " The first woman unofficially accepted at Oxford"
  • "The last survivor of the 1920 conferral ceremonies was Constance Savery who graduated in 1920" - last four words are redundant given how the sentence starts
  • Image caption starting "former" needs a full stop
  • Suggest linking "jurisprudence" in the table as it's a rather obscure word -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude, I've gathered and added as much info as I could in a "History" section. I've also made the minor edits you have suggested and added the links too. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omnis Scientia, thank you for writing the article and expanding the coverage of women at Oxford. In response to ChrisTheDude's question, the exams available and taken by women changed during the period. From 1876 the university's Delegacy for Local Examinations (DLE) offered Women’s Examinations, equivalent to Responsions, and pass or honours final examinations.[1] By 1894 women could take university examination papers through the DLE, which awarded a certificate of the results of the exams.[2] From 1896 Somerville or the Association for the Education of Women issued a diploma listing the exams a student had passed at the end of her studies.[3]
  • Suggest replacing Graduation date with Final examination in the table, if that is what the date represents
  • Suggest another paragraph explaining about the exams available and the certificates and diplomas mentioned above
  • LMH, Somerville and the Home Students all opened in 1879. LMH uses a foundation date of 1878 as its founding committee was set up in that year, but I think that is not relevant to this article
  • I believe that in "By 1895, Oxford and the University of Cambridge were the only universities in the United Kingdom to deny women degrees" the UK means GB and NI, as Trinity College, Dublin was not awarding women degrees. Suggest replacing United Kingdom with Great Britain
  • Suggest that "The five women's colleges were not given equal status to men's colleges until 1959" should say "the men's colleges" as it refers to the group of existing fully accepted colleges, not men's colleges in general.St Catherine's College, Oxford St Peter's College, Oxford and St Catherine's College, Oxford did not get full college status until 1961 and 1962. TSventon (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TSventon, thank you for the additional info! Being honest, I didn't FULLY understand the whole exam diploma/certificate system so I wrote in one line that they were given certificates at the end of examinations, along with a reference. You're welcome to expand on the examination process if you want.
    I've also added most of the rest of your suggestions. I do think graduation is correct term since they did complete their studies. They were just not given a degree. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TSventon, would like an update on this. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Omnis Scientia apologies for the delay. I have expanded the sentence on exams and certificates as requested, please copy edit as necessary. I have looked up "graduation" e.g. at Collins and it has at least two separate meanings, 1 completion of studies and 2 degree ceremony, so the way it is used in the table is correct, but confusing. That is a detail so
  • Support TSventon (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TSventon, thank you! Much appreciated! :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.firstwomenatoxford.ox.ac.uk/article/from-lectures-for-ladies-to-university-examination
  2. ^ https://www.firstwomenatoxford.ox.ac.uk/1894-1896
  3. ^ https://www.some.ox.ac.uk/about/a-brief-history-of-somerville/pre-war-years/

Comments by Alavense

edit

Excellent work, Omnis Scientia. I saw nothing other than maybe a comma missing in "was Constance Savery who died"? Support. Alavense (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alavense, I've fixed the comma. Thank you for the kind words! :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by UC

edit

An enjoyable article on an important topic. Some points below. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead seems terribly short -- I don't see that it includes much from the history section, which would seem to break MOS:LEAD -- unless things work differently for lists?
  • A pedantic one -- matriculating is something that the student does -- therefore, people aren't matriculated, they matriculate.
  • The history of the Oxford women's colleges is a bit complicated, and I must admit to not understanding it very well. However, I'm looking with some confusion at the sentence In June 1878, the Association for the Education of Women (AEW) was formed, aiming for the eventual creation of a college for women in Oxford. The first women's colleges at Oxford opened the following year: Lady Margaret Hall, Somerville Hall and the Society of Oxford Home-Students (later known as St Anne's College).. St Anne's didn't technically become a college until the 1950s, and the Society of Oxford Home-Students needs a bit of explanation as to what it actually was -- it certainly wasn't formally a college, but was practically quite a different beast as well (this may need an EFN when it comes to the table). Both Somerville and LMH were also technically halls of residence instead of colleges (Somerville formally changed over in 1894), but I'm not sure how important the distinction was. Were they, however, always strictly colleges of the university rather than permanent private halls?
  • The five women's colleges were not given equal status to the men's colleges until 1959: what does equal status actually mean, in this context?
  • For accessibility, better to move the Times blockquote to the right, to maintain a consistent left margin.
  • I'm a little uncomfortable with the sourcing in the history section -- it's almost entirely publications from the university itself, and for that matter, almost all a self-published, non-scholarly web page -- whatever we think of the quality of Oxford's research, we shouldn't extend the same deference to their PR team. This doesn't meet the "independent" site of WP:HQRS -- we shouldn't allow Oxford to mark their own homework.
  • This was a huge step towards women being granted full membership: both a cliché and perhaps a bit back-patting?
  • the statute which established the Delegacy acknowledged women as Oxford members for the first time as well as the five women's colleges, with the University assuming formal control and supervision over them: this is a run-on sentence, and it becomes quite unclear as to whether it was the colleges or the women who were formally controlled.
  • It would be another ten years of campaigning before women were finally admitted as full members: we haven't really talked about this campaigning at all.
  • Notable women conferred degrees in 1920: what's the criteria for inclusion here?
  • I would make the college and degree subject columns sortable.
  • Being pedantic again, is it a graduation year if you didn't receive a degree (gradus)? I do see the Collins point above, but in this particular context it's clear that nobody -- including the women themselves -- would have seen themselves as "graduating" in e.g. 1886 (otherwise, why turn up to "graduate" again?). Suggest "Final year of studies".
  • The citation to "Dorothy L Sayers: A Biography" is oddly formatted, and the link is broken. Her ODNB page says that the degree was in modern French (it brackets 'medieval', but to me that sounds like Sayers got her degree in 'modern' (post-Latin) French by offering papers in medieval French, like someone might get a degree in Archaeology and Anthropology by studying human evolution).
  • The citation formatting is a bit inconsistent -- check dashes for ranges, dashes or no dashes for ISBNS, dots and spaces after p, and the other little pedantic things. Using citation templates throughout would help.
@UndercoverClassicist: I have posted a link to your questions on @Omnis Scientia:'s talk page and will try to answer your questions about colleges.
what does equal status actually mean, in this context? The University of Oxford currently has three types of “colleges”. Most are colleges of the University of Oxford (full colleges), which have royal charters and are governed by their fellows. There are also permanent private halls, which are governed by religious institutions, and societies, which are neither colleges nor PPHs.[1] The women’s halls were not recognised by the university at all until 1910. A college head said they “are in Oxford, but they are not of Oxford, and are no more known to the University, as such, than Holloway College, many of whose students pass University examinations but will be jealously excluded from degrees.“ [2]: 272  In 1910 they became “recognised societies” and in 1920 “societies of women students”. [3]
In 1959 the women’s societies became full colleges, which meant that they were accepted as equal to the existing (men’s) colleges. A prerequisite for the status of a college of the university of Oxford was that governance was in the hands of the principal and fellows rather than external trustees. Also, according to the Oxford Magazine, college heads could be appointed as vice-chancellor.[4] The next colleges to be recognised were St Peter's College, Oxford in 1961 and St Catherine's College, Oxford in 1962.
Were they, however, always strictly colleges of the university rather than permanent private halls? The women's colleges were recognised as societies from 1910 until 1959, rather than halls or full colleges.
LMH, Somerville, St Hugh’s and St Hilda’s opened as halls of residence, without any teaching staff (see chapters of the Victoria County History). As student numbers increased they started to employ tutors and, apart from LMH, take the name of college. For example Somerville changed its name “in the belief that it would not only improve the educational status of Somerville in the eyes of the public, but would be understood as implying the desire of the Governing Body to raise it above the level of a Hall of Residence.“ [5] The four women’s colleges received royal charters in 1926 (see chapters of the Victoria County History).
The home students were supervised by the AEW from 1879 to 1910, but only given their own principal and committee in 1893. From 1910 they were supervised by the Delegacy for Woman Students and from 1920 by the Delegacy for Home-Students. In 1942 The home students took the name St Anne’s Society and in 1952 they received a royal charter and took the name St Anne’s College.[6] TSventon (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this -- it certainly helped me clarify things, and I hope it will find its way as necessary into the article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist, I will add on that "notable women" are women who have article on Wikipedia.
Also want to thank @TSventon a lot for their contribution here. They know a lot more about this topic than I do. I started this list in part to listify a category and learned about the subject as I was creating it. Quite a bit of info was added by TSventon and he provided a lot of missing names to add on. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I searched Wikipedia for all the women who graduated in 1920–1921 academic year according to the Oxford University Gazette and found 69 names. The is as complete as I can make it but I may have missed a few cases where the names in Wikipedia and the Gazette are different for some reason. TSventon (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the ambition is to make this a complete list (even if that ambition may never be fulfilled, because some of the women won't have good sources about them), I think we should cut the word "notable" in the subhead, which implies that it's only ever going to be a curated one. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist and Omnis Scientia: I have expanded the section about women's colleges as discussed.
As to completeness, the list currently includes about 65 names out of about 650 graduations in the first year and I don't think there is any ambition to increase that significantly.
On sourcing, I agree that we should not over rely on university websites. Within those, some pages are written by academics, especially firstwomenatoxford.ox.ac.uk, which names a team of academics and archivists. I think that is a high quality source, but not an independent one. TSventon (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon, great work, thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist and Omnis Scientia: the FL criteria require a "lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria". Do you know any examples of FL where an inclusion criterion is Wikipedia notability or having a Wikipedia article? TSventon (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon, I can't think of one. I do think that the criteria of the list is explained in the lead of this particular article. My bias opinion, of course. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see any statement in the lead of the inclusion criteria for this list, which leads me to believe that the list theoretically includes all the women awarded degrees in that first ceremony. I would say that formally setting the criteria at "has a Wikipedia article" would be an odd choice, since we don't consider Wikipedia to have any scholarly authority in itself. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist and Omnis Scientia: I agree the criteria should be explained, but lists of notable foos seem to be accepted in Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. The list was originally based on Category:First women admitted to degrees at Oxford, but is now based on women's graduations between October 2020 and December 2021 listed in the Oxford University Gazette, digitised here, where I have found a Wikipedia article. In Stand-alone lists, WP:LISTPEOPLE says

Because the subject of many lists is broad, a person is typically included in a list of people only if both of the following requirements are met:

In the WP:CSC (Common selection criteria) section of the same guideline, the first criterion given is Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the near future. Red-linked entries should be accompanied by citations sufficient to show that the entry is sufficiently notable for an article to be written on it (i.e., citations showing significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject).
Would something like the first sentence of List of 2019 albums work? It was mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:Stand-alone lists/Archive 12#Documenting selection criteria. TSventon (talk) 11:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a distinction between "meets the criteria for a Wikipedia article", which is reasonably defensible (because it essentially means "has been noticed in good scholarship"), and "has a Wikipedia article", which is much harder. WP:LISTPEOPLE applies really to potentially very large lists -- as we have an exact and fairly small number for the total population eligible to be listed here, I think we should be aiming to get all of them. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UndercoverClassicist and Omnis Scientia: I personally prefer the current criteria over including a complete list. For ordinary degrees the current list has 52 names out of a total 733 degrees awarded, ignoring the Oxford MAs. It would be possible to import a spreadsheet with all the names, but that feels WP:INDISCRIMINATE to me. Also the current list has name, college, subject and exam year, while the lists in the Gazette only have name, college, degree (mostly B.A.) and graduation date).
The list as submitted included the criterion "notable", so red links could be included. Also articles which don't meet the criteria for the list can be excluded. TSventon (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; my view would be that if someone who would meet (say) GNG is excluded from the list purely because they do not currently have a Wikipedia page, that list cannot claim to be sufficiently complete or comprehensive under the FL criteria. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon, @UndercoverClassicist, if you think a complete list is good then I'm for it. We can divide the names so its easier to navigate the page. By that I mean "A-G" "H-P", "R-Z" or something similar. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Organisation". University of Oxford. Archived from the original on 28 January 2016. Retrieved 2024-06-14.
  2. ^ Brock, Michael G.; Curthoys, Mark C., eds. (2000). "10 'In Oxford but…not of Oxford': The Women's Colleges". The History of the University of Oxford, Vol. 7: Nineteenth-Century Oxford, Part 2. Oxford University Press. pp. 237–308.
  3. ^ "Somerville College, Woodstock Road". Kelly's Directory of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire. 1939. p. 206.
  4. ^ "Gaudeamus Nuffieldenses". The Oxford Magazine. 1957. p. 502. it will , as a New Foundation , not be listed on the roll of those eligible to present for the Vice-Chan-cellorship
  5. ^ Salter, H. E.; Lobel, Mary D. (1954). "Somerville College". The Victoria History of the County of Oxford. Vol. 3: The University of Oxford. London: British History Online. pp. 343–347.
  6. ^ Salter, H. E.; Lobel, Mary D. (1954). "St Anne's College". The Victoria History of the County of Oxford. Vol. 3: The University of Oxford. London: British History Online. pp. 351–353.

Source review

edit

I'll do a source review, and add any general comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there are quite a few tweaks needed, but nothing fundamental - mainly consistency across citations. Please feel free to challenge or to ask for clarifications. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • I think that where there is no author stated, there should be a blank rather than "_____,", but let me check.
  • Not all online sources have access dates (e.g. Constance Savery". Bethlehem Books; "1894-1896". University of Oxford; "1896 Towards Degrees for Women". Somerville College.) checkY
  • There should be consistency in whether sources are linked. (e.g. St. Anne's College, Oxford is linked in ref 8, but Somerville College isn't in ref 17) checkY
  • There shoud be consistency in whether publication loctions for books are given. checkY
  • Shuld be consistency in how page numbers are given (like "p.12", not like "p10") checkY
  • Surprisingly, 'They couldn't go on the river with a man on their own' - the changing lives of Oxford's female students" requires registration, so it should have a url-access=Registration parameter checkY
  • Who's Who (refs 35, 53, 112) is considered "generally unreliable" at WP:RSP checkY
  • Repetition in " 'University Intelligence', The Times, 26 June 1912, p.12; 'University Intelligence', The Times, 27 June 1912, p.6." - is it one article continued across pages 6 and 12? (I have access to the Times Digital Archive, so can check this if you're not sure) checkY
  • Doesn't look like "(Following the Oxford custom a BA not a BSc.) University Intelligence, The Times, 28 June 1920, p10" is formatted quite correctly. checkY
  • Brittain, Vera (1960). The Women at Oxford. appears three times, with inconsistent details. checkY
Sure thing, will fix these issues. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I've gotten most of them, @BennyOnTheLoose. If I missed something, make sure to ping me.
I should add that most of inconsistancy and repetativeness is because I took the sources from the articles themselves and their formatting was varied. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia: Thanks for the responses so far. I've made a few formatting tweaks suggested by scripts; please review these and revert any which you disagree with. "Rx" below refers to "reference number x". I'll take another look after you've replied to the points below, and haven't forgotten that I said I would check about ""_____," Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk)

  • Not a requirement for FL, but you could use https://anticompositetools.toolforge.org/hyphenator/ to standardise the formatting of the ISBNs. checkY
  • Not a requirement for FL to change it, as far as I'm aware, but it's unusual to see FLC citations not using a citation template (e.g. the first five refs) checkY
  • Oxford Dictionary of National Biography citations are inconsistent. (e.g. Not all have the red padlock, some have authors, R27 has a date, some don't have the doi, not all have accessed date, R98 doesn't have the wikilink, R104 has the abbreviation) checkY
  • R12 - missing ISBN
  • R14 - missing publisher
  • R15 - missing ISBN
  • R17 - Missing access date
  • R22 - Missing access date
  • R33 - incomplete details (missing page title)
  • R44 - Missing access date
  • R46 isn't this published by "Somerville College" rather than by "University of Oxford WWI Centenary" ? checkY
  • What makes melaniespanswick.com a reliable source? (I see lots of books, but wasn't fully convinced) checkY
  • Authors don't all use first/last parameters:
    • last=Parkes, Susan M. checkY
    • author=Mavis Curtis checkY
    • first1=Catherine M. C. Haines with Helen M. checkY
    • author1=Dimand, Robert William|author2=Dimand, Mary Ann|author3=Forget, Evelyn L. checkY
    • author=Frances Lannon checkY
    • Fernanda Helen Perrone (not in a citation template; surname should appear first) checkY
    • Constance Savery (R51; not in a citation template; surname should appear first) checkY
    • Giles Brindley (not in a citation template; surname should appear first) checkY
    • Philip E. Bennett (not in a citation template; surname should appear first) checkY
  • Vera Brittain could have an author-link checkY
  • Rosemary Mitchell could have an author-link checkY
  • Textile History could be wikilinked checkY
  • National Library of Wales could be wikilinked checkY
  • Pitt Rivers Museum could be wikilinked checkY
  • Book titles are inconsistently capitalised. I think these should be amended: A danger to the men? : a history of women in Trinity College Dublin 1904–2004, A biographical dictionary of women economists, Brief biographies of British mycologists, Traditions of social policy : essays in honour of Violet Butler; International women in science : a biographical dictionary to 1950. Also "Oxford dictionary of national biography" checkY
  • R68 - publication is via isuu, not by it checkY
  • As far as I know, we usually omit "Ltd/Limited" from the publisher name in citations checkY
  • A couple of web citations have the url displayed in the citation, e.g. trowelblazers.com, www.newulsterbiography.co.uk. I think just the site name should be shown. checkY
  • Still some inconsitency in whether sources are wikilinked. checkY

General comments

Ticking the ones as I finish them. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose, okay I think I've gotten most of them. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose, anything else? Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • R6, Handbook to the University of Oxford. Oxford University Press. 1965. has an ISBN despite pre-dating the ISBN system. Is it right? checkY (I'm assuming its the isbn of a new addition. Have removed it.)
  • R56, Savery's work diaries. Is this a published book, or something held in the University of Oregon archives? checkY (removed since, yes, its held by the University of Oregon and is not accessible.)
  • R73, Glenday & Price. Could use its OCLC (779055717) if there is no ISBN. checkY
  • R76, Rayner-Canham. Missing ISBN. checkY
  • What makes fantastic-writers-and-the-great-war.com a suitable source? checkY (fair point; removed)
  • R83, Richardson. Missing ISBN. checkY
  • R84, "DR ENID STARKIE" should not be in all-caps checkY
  • Oxford Dictionary of National Biography citations are nearly all now consistent, except that only one (R30) lists the author. Shouldn't all the authors be listed, and shouldn't there be access dates as it's the online version? checkY (access-dates require URL; the "cite ODNB" template required the doi and the title; there are more options but the rest isn't required)
  • There is still inconsistency in whether publishers are linked. checkY
Okay so I've decided to NOT link the publishers since some don't have articles. The rest, I will tell you as soon as I'm done. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose, okay that's done. Hopefully correctly. Ping me if there is more to be done. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly there. I've made, and will probably make a couple more, minor tweaks. Please review and let me know if any are objectionable. In two cases it's not entirely clear to me whether the WorldCat site, or the book it refers to, is being cited. (If a cite web, then it doesn't need the OCLC, if a cite book then it doesn't need the WorldCat url.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a point that affects FL status, but are the two Further Reading books deliberately ordered by date rather than surname?
I swapped out one WorldCat ref for a book. I don't think the current sources for Ivy Wiliams (R89, R90) verify the info; although the wording in On This Day She could maybe be interpreted as supporting it. I think that's the last point! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose, thanks for the help! And yes the books were deliberately ordered by date, to answer your question.
I will look into Ivy Williams further too. Best regards to as well. :) Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another general comment:

I agree with the spelling, but the degrees by decree were not honorary degrees as, unlike honorary degrees, they conferred the normal rights of a degree, see the 1866 Oxford University Calendar. Honorary degree#Customary degrees (ad eundem or jure officii degrees) has some background information, not all sourced. TSventon (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnis Scientia, do you want me to replace 134 with <ref name="Gazette 1920–1921" />{{rp|p=134}}, etc.? That should be possible. TSventon (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon, yes that would be better. Also replace the Page header with Ref.. Though wait a minute on that. I'm just making the tables accessible per the rules. Will ping you when I'm done. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon, okay that's the accessibility of the table completed. You can add the references in place of the pages as you see fit. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Complete list

edit

@Omnis Scientia, UndercoverClassicist, BennyOnTheLoose, Alavense, and ChrisTheDude: I have compiled a complete list of graduates from the Oxford University Gazette as suggested by UC and saved it here on the article talk page. I have only done up to December 1920 to give you all a chance to comment on whether it is better than a list of wikipedia articles and to suggest improvements to the format.

Notes: I have removed transcription errors as far as I could. I have noted where the woman was Mrs. as it makes it easier to look for the names elsewhere. I have put each degree on a separate line and ignored Oxford MAs. Only two women, Mary Lindsay Gordon and Ivy Williams, received two degrees. The names of colleges could probably be shortened by omitting college. I have given Wikipedia articles their own column so the table can be sorted for "has Wikipedia article". The last column is a page number but could be a full reference if necessary. TSventon (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia and UndercoverClassicist: I have replaced the tables with complete versions sourced to the Oxford University Gazette, but they will doubtless need further tweaking. I have just added 1920, but 1921 could be added at a future date. I think it is helpful to allow sorting on most columns. TSventon (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, @TSventon! Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility issues

edit

Noting that the table does not have column or row scopes. See PresN's standard comment here for some advice. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh, will get to it. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh, done. The table was changed just a while back so that's why none of the column or scope rows were there. Table's still being tweaked but do check if everything is good now. Thanks. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh, I have done my corrections.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/First_women_admitted_to_degrees_at_the_University_of_Oxford/archive1&oldid=1243896850"