Talk:Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge

RfC: Truncate Giulio Regeni content

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(Here to close, as an uninvolved editor, this open RfC where the latest comment was well over a month ago.) I think everyone more or less (and I say that advisedly) agrees on 'yes'; at least there are no dissenting opinions. (Esteemed members Polygnotus and Chetsford are invited to arrange a healthy exchange of views over a pint or three, followed by pistols at dawn if that doesn't settle it. May god have mercy on their souls, either way.) I believe I'm reflecting community consensus in saying that the coverage of the topic in question in this article should be reduced to a proportionate size; not necessarily a single sentence but not more than... 'a bit'. Furthermore, I don't see why this should require further debate, so someone – please, go forth and implement! --DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

---

Should the content in this article [1] that details the murder of Giulio Regeni be truncated to a single sentence summary with a wikilink to the main article (Murder of Giulio Regeni)? Chetsford (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC); edited 14:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes, per WP:DUE. There is currently a standalone article on this topic. The contents in question -- which comprise roughly 40% of the narrative text of this article -- are duplicated there in greater detail. Moreover, the connection of the Regeni murder to this article seems tendentious as the thrust of the content appears to be chronicling a failure by the university, not this specific instructional department within the university. If a duplicative paragraph is needed, it should be at the University of Cambridge article. Chetsford (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford: RfC's that are used to make a WP:POINT are never good RfCs. Bit silly to start an RfC out of nowhere, and people won't have read our conversation on your talkpage so they won't know why you started it. Also, you should read the Guardian article I posted above in the refideas template. And the content in this article that details the murder of Giulio Regeni is already one sentence so the RfC question doesn't even make sense. The rest of it talks about the University of Cambridge's actions and response, and the response to that. Polygnotus (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• I think so. The removal of the long version on this page with a link to the Murder of Giulio Regeni avoids repetition on Wikipedia. I thought that's what was supposed to happen to avoid conflicting or out of date information on separate Wikipedia pages. I'm not sure what it adds as a description of the Department of Politics and International Studies. It certainly doesn't work as the majority of words (207 of the 261) under "History" of the department. While it is a tragic event that happened to a student from the department, it feels like explaining the ins and outs of the inquest and what various politicians had to say about it on this page is out of place. Dm980cam (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
• Yes The murder of a student, while tragic, should not constitute the majority of the articlespace for the history. The controversy about the university's response is more fit for the University's article, not a specific department --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 02:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Yes. (Summoned by bot) The content on the murder is unambigously far out of WP:PROPORTION to that topic's overall relevance to providing an encyclopedic summary of this article's subject. Anything that may inexplicably be present here but not in the article for the murder can be merged in there. 1-3 summary sentences on the murder and a clear internal link to the article for the murder will suffice for this article. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• Sort of. One sentence isn't enough. The reader should be given some idea of why following the link to the bio article might shed light on the subject of this article (the POLIS institution). Add a sentence along the lines of "There was dispute about whether Regeni's tutors at Cambridge University had declined to collaborate with the inquest into his murder" then the cross-reference to the bio article. JamesMLane t c 03:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Hi Polygnotus - there's nothing POINTy about this RfC. Given the sensitive nature of the content, and the fact you've already objected to its removal, an RfC is the appropriate way to avoid a potential edit war. Also, I'm not certain what your questions about Oxford alumni on my Talk page have to do with this, but here's a link for future RfC participants to that discussion, if you think it's useful context. I don't. But, you know, whatever.
  Thank you for the link to the Guardian article. I'm sure it's interesting and I'll add it to my reading list for the future. Chetsford (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford: I am not sure why you act like this. Did I unintentionally insult you because (you felt like) I said I didn't really see the point of notable alumni sections and you created one? If so, that was not my intention. It looks very WP:POINTy when someone points out that you removed a section (which you restore) and then says they don't see the point of "Notable alumni" sections, and suggests splitting it, to then start an RFC about splitting the content you just restored. And you haven't even responded to the fact that the RfC make no sense, you propose to split content that details the murder of Giulio Regeni which is a single sentence. Polygnotus (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, why do you think I objected to its removal? And why do you think RfC's (instead of a normal conversation between adults) is the appropriate way to avoid a potential edit war? Who are you going to editwar against? Polygnotus (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Huh? Chetsford (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford: That was my reaction as well. So please explain your POV. Polygnotus (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

"explain your POV" It's in the section labeled "survey" (here's a diff [2]) Chetsford (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Very funny (if that was the intention, or not if it wasn't). Can you answer the questions above please? Polygnotus (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking if that wasn't it. Sorry. Chetsford (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford:

1. Why do you think I objected to the removal of that content? (before you answer please look at this edit)
2. And why do you think RfC's are "the appropriate way to avoid a potential edit war" in this context (instead of a normal conversation)?
3. Please respond to my statement that the RfC does not even make sense because there is only one sentence that mentions the murder itself, and the rest of it is about the University of Cambridge's actions and response, and the responses to that.

If you would actually read the Guardian article I posted above you'd see its kind of a storm in a teacup scenario. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Polygnotus - I'm going to decline to continue this conversation as the wider scope of discussion beyond the very narrow and specific question of this RfC is not something I can get myself excited about enough to type a response. But please know that your contributions are valued and I appreciate you. Chetsford (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford: I love you too but you are a bit confusing. Have a nice day, Polygnotus (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promotional

@Cordless Larry: Which parts are promotional? Maybe we can get rid of those? Polygnotus (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not Cordless Larry, however, I feel this sentence "Current high impact scholars, listed in order of cumulative career citations (as reported by Google Scholar)" is extremely problematic. First, the word "current" is MOS:RELTIME; second, this includes an editorial statement accompanied by WP:OR created to support the statement ("high impact faculty, listed in order of ..."); third, it includes redlinked people where there's limited likelihood the people will have an article forthcoming (WP:CSC). A list of faculty is totally fine and is customary in articles of this type, however, it should be a plain list with references, presented in alphabetical order and without a preamble. Chetsford (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies this was my doing when I reviewed the list for objective academic credibility, resulting in removal of some entries and addition of others. I have made draft entries for those redinked missing bios. I also want to finally move on to cleaning up other entries, so will leave the rest of that for others to review/finalize. I also rewrote the sentence to remove words like current. Helmut.groetzi-genf (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The main promotional elements are the list of degrees (we're not a prospectus), the table of research centres (these could be covered with a single sentence) and the list of "high impact scholars" (which is also original research, being based on interpretation of a primary source). Cordless Larry (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Also agree on the point about the list of degrees (WP:NOTCATALOG). That's more appropriate for the department's website. Chetsford (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I have a slight disagreement on the point of the table only because, if I recall, when it was previously presented in narrative format it was an unwieldy long sentence (100+ words IIRC) and the names of notable faculty were also being crammed in there which made it completely incoherent; MOS:DEFLIST suggests we convert these to table formats where there are two or more types of information presented. However, I'm fine with whatever. But, if we do go to a single sentence, I'd suggest completely eviscerating the names of the centres and just drop a short sentence (i.e. "Ten research centres are house within the department." instead of trying to list all ten.) Chetsford (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I assume "house" should be "housed", if so I agree. Polygnotus (talk) 20:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the list of degrees is excessive to purpose, not sure how many people would go to wikipedia for information that specific about a single department. The list of scholars is quite short though. For a university like this I would actually have thought there were more faculty with wiki bio entries already. Helmut.groetzi-genf (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The faculty listing should be alphabetical, not by citation count (which is a flawed metric in any case). Cordless Larry (talk) 09:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and made these changes which, I believe, encompasses the consensus that's evolved here. Please boldly revert me if it does not:

1. Removed redlinked faculty per WP:CSC and WP:NOTDIRECTORY,
2. Ordered faculty alphabetically, instead of citation count,
3. Removed the preamble that says they're ordered by citation count,
4. Merged them all into a single list of "Faculty, past and present" instead of separate "current" and "former" faculty lists --- I did a quick audit of articles like List of University of California, Los Angeles people and List of University of Michigan faculty and staff and can't find any examples of a continually updated list of faculty getting moved back and forth to different lists based on current employment status; moreover MOS:DATED seems to preclude using in-article lists in ways that are likely to become outdated such as this.

Chetsford (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

These are not consensus changes at all. As per Cordless Larry: "The main promotional elements are the list of degrees (we're not a prospectus), the table of research centres (these could be covered with a single sentence) and the list of "high impact scholars" (which is also original research, being based on interpretation of a primary source)". The changes may partly address the last of these but it was already very short - surely the main promotional elements are really the first two? Daronandon (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"The changes may partly address the last of these" That's all it was intended to address. I'm not the update fairy. Chetsford (talk) 07:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

OK, but looking at the page it really seems like it is that huge long list of alumni, photos, degrees, and centers that are taking up all the space in a promotional manner and earned the promotional tag.Daronandon (talk) 08:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay. And? Chetsford (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, looking at the revision history I can see that you worked on adding a lot of these alumni entries, photos and the center table last month.... now flagged as promotional. So I fully understand not wanting to cut those, and instead remove the tag. But still the consensus here seems to be that those are the real issue with this entry? Daronandon (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"the consensus here seems to be that those are the real issue with this entry" In this section, you seem to be the only one that's discussed that specific thing (the list of alumni). The previous discussion in this section has to do ordering faculty by citation count, the centres table, and the list of degrees. Chetsford (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Please edit

Will someone please add Dr Joel Rogers de Waal as the Director for the YouGov-Cambridge Centre for Public Opinion Research? Different names have been added and deleted a couple of times in that space, so my colleague spoke with YouGov today and Dr Joel Rogers de Waal is the Academic Director for YouGov. Here are the references https://yougov.co.uk/people/joelr and https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/about-us/person/joel-rogers-de-waal/ The reference to Roberto is out of date. Thank you. Dm980cam (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Chetsford (talk) 04:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford - you are an experienced editor so I will defer to your experience, but does wikipedia base updates on phone conversations? As I searched for internet references when making the initial change, but could find no reference to Joel in the links provided. Daronandon (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Did your search include the two references included in the OP, both of which say de Waal is the director? Chetsford (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Neither state that he is a Director at Cambridge though - only that he runs academic programs at YouGov? Surely there must be something on a Cambridge website we could refer to... but nothing came up. Daronandon (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I thought it was very clear and obvious. But if it's not to at least one person it may not be to others, either. Chetsford (talk) 08:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

From their website, YouGov have academic partnerships with lots of universities. Surely he cannot be the director for all of them? When I google this, the only Cambridge name on the links is the one they asked us to remove, does the Center even still exist? On the YouGov website for the Center there are no names and their last story was January 2023, which is around the same time as those links. Daronandon (talk) 10:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully this will clear things up https://www.polis.cam.ac.uk/Staff_and_Students/dr-joel-rogers-de-waal YouGov definitely still exists: https://yougov.co.uk/cambridge and their most recent story was not in Jan 23. This https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/50989-three-quarters-support-assisted-dying-lawis from 3 days ago. Dm980cam (talk) 10:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Apologies but I am still confused here!

i. The YouGov link story is not related to Cambridge at all. It is a story from their head of data journalism (a Matthew Smith) about something entirely unrelated to Cambridge.

ii. The bio link you sent (from your own website??) does not say what you say it says i.e. it does not identify deWaal as director of the cambridge center, only as an affiliate.

iii. The yougov.co.uk/cambridge site stops in January 2023 with a story about young westerners seeing themselves as not totally masculine or feminine. Where is the more recent story than that? I cannot find it there.

Could we look in to this a bit further? There is something really odd here. Daronandon (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Darandon. Can I ask why you think think there's something funny going on? I mean, you asked for something on a Cambridge website and I gave you one. Of course it's from the POLIS website, where else would it be? Since that's still not enough, here's another Cambridge website that I am not in any way associated with... https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/about-us/person/joel-rogers-de-waal/

If that's still not enough, is that because you think the Director is someone else or because you think YouGov is not associated with POLIS? I am really confused by your vehemence on this subject. You definitely care more than I do, so please delete YouGov from the article if you think we're trying to pull a fast one. LOL. I care about incorrect information, but not about missing information, so I will not dispute it.

If you do delete it, please remember to change Ten at the top to nine. Thanks. Dm980cam (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

That is just another link from Cambridge, with the same content as before. I can certainly email them tomorrow and post their replies here - but, for the purpose of a wiki entry, there ought to be at least one reference that confirms what is stated. Daronandon (talk) 18:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

If you email anyone, email Roberto (Stefan) Foa who has been described as the Director of the YouGov-Cambridge Centre for Public Opinion Research at some point in the past. Polygnotus (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

ok. Will let you know when I hear anything back. Daronandon (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Finally got replies and do not know what to say. Only for now I guess that the "jokey" gaslighting and subtle passive aggressiveness of this thread seem totally messed up, when set against the actual succession of events. Daronandon (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Roberto Stefan Foa is ... Director of the YouGov-Cambridge Centre for Public Opinion Research.[3] Dm980cam says that that is outdated and that the current director is someone else, so if you want to confirm that by email, mr. Foa seems to be in the position to confirm or deny this. Polygnotus (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Apparently there were always two directors, one from YouGov and the other from Cambridge. Prof Foa was the Cambridge director in 2021 and 2022 before Prof Browne took the role. Daronandon (talk) 07:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Declaring my lack of a COI

A blocked editor accused me of being WP:PAID by Cambridge to edit this article. I am not.
The accusation was posted to this page [4] and since reverted. I hereby declare I have a non-conflicting interest in this article. Specifically to the accusations:

• The editor said I added a detailed list of alumni that "could NOT have been obtained by any other means than direct provision by the client". The way I obtained this is by going to Google and typing in phrases like "received an MPhil in politics from the University of Cambridge", etc., seeing if the person had a WP article about them, and then adding them to the list.
• "Then, from Oct 16 2024 to Oct 27 2024, user Chetsford continued to insert promotional content in violation of WP:PROMO. This includes not only the alumni list, but the detailed list of degrees ..." This is incorrect. The detailed list of degrees was added by Dm980cam [5]. Moreover, after they added it, I posted my objection to its inclusion on this very Talk page [6]
• "... plus further details on the history of the department not found on public sources. In fact, every sentence in the History section is cited to an WP:RS that meets our WP:VERIFY policy. So I'm not sure how these are non-public but I invite clarification of this point if there's something I'm misunderstanding.

"I invite Chetsford to explain how he obtained so much promotional content in such a short period of time... see above ...and to fully disclose all conflicts of interest, in line with WP:COI." I have no COI. Several years ago I had a non-pecuniary relationship with Cambridge, though not the department that is the subject of this article. I do not currently have such a relationship.
I'm happy to explain the nature of that relationship in private correspondence. I've never been employed by Cambridge, am not paid to edit by it, and am not paid to edit by anyone.
Moreover, it seems like it would be incredibly inefficient for Cantab to have a fully disclosed COI editor active on this article and then -- simultaneously -- to be secretly channeling me funds through a numbered Swiss bank account solely to object to said editor's edits. That sounds more like a performance art project than a COI conspiracy. With that said, I also declare I am not involved in any performance art projects involving the University of Cambridge. Chetsford (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Chetsford, Nicely said. You mean the 8 years of excellent work you've done on Wikipedia editing everything from Banksy to Transatlantic Cables wasn't just a huge ruse to allow you to edit the POLIS article for money? Unbelievable.

And you make a good point, why on earth would I be so meticulously open and honest about the fact that I work for the university and then come around from the side and collude with another editor? Surely, if that was my master plan, I would have just created an anonymous profile and kept switching it up like so many others do. Good or bad, I am a rule follower and if you look at any of my interactions - in the teahouse, talk pages, wiki-help - my message is always 'How can I make sure the page is accurate while playing by the rules?'

Someone is living in fantasy land. Dm980cam (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, it's not unusual for someone to do WP as a hobby and then occasionally take money under the table for undisclosed WP:PAID. However, I've never heard a case of a publicly-funded university paying-off WP editors. That would definitely be something! Chetsford (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't you see? It's all connected. Chetsford is a secret agent working for Banksy who is trying to communicate with the university of Cambridge via trans-Atlantic cables. I am certain the illuminati is involved I am just not sure how. Polygnotus (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I have no connection to either rodeoreal or martin, but would have appreciated you pinging me before raising your concerns. Anyway, it now seems there was indeed a strong motivation for wanting to clean up their wiki page, a reason which they did not disclose before guiding other editors along. Daronandon (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Also Declaring An Interest (2)

My partner is a former student of the department. Over a week ago, they were asked by its leadership if they knew anyone who could assist in "cleaning up" its page. As a former editor I have always acted with impartiality and good faith and until today had no idea of the true motivation for this request, which was not to correct factual errors, but (we infer) to protect it from potential upcoming disclosures by existing and former members of staff who have allegedly been treated poorly.

While we started out in good faith, after reading the discussion on this page, quickly began to have doubts and those were then confirmed.

Accordingly we renounce making any further edits to all non-talk wikipedia pages, but we will remain available to wikipedia editors to answer questions, including about the specific new articles @that we were asked to create.

We believe other individuals with a past link to the university likely received similar requests. As stated, neither of us have a connection to other accounts active on this page. Daronandon (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

What did they want cleaned up? Which potential upcoming disclosures by existing and former members of staff are we talking about? Is it because they were underpaid? Polygnotus (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

My partner was asked to do two things to start out.

First to break the wiki redirect link from Prof Abdulrahman to the Regeni scandal, by creating a unique bio for her. We are ashamed to say we did this, as you can see from the logs (but only realized afterwards that it was meant as a means of breaking the redirect). We are now glad that this was swiftly reversed (thank you!!)

Second, to generate a wiki entry for Prof Browne that would include a highlight of her "awareness of the needs and concerns of boys and men." As you can see from the logs we started on that also.

Then started to raise questions when we pushed back against stuff on this page that we had independent reason to believe wasn't true. The instructions stopped after that. Daronandon (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Did they communicate via a method that allows you to share their instructions (e.g. by copypasting an email?). It would be interesting to see what they asked you to do. There are various noticeboards for such things, perhaps try WP:NPOVN? Polygnotus (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. All communication was by email, from an official account. Daronandon (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Much worse than pay. Former DEI and student reps have corroborated too and listed further alleged cases including a recent alleged settlement. Daronandon (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Daronandon - while you tell a fascinating tale, there's nothing we can do about it here. Please report this to paid-en-wp/at/wikipedia.org so it can be properly investigated. Chetsford (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Please forward the email to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org For more information see Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Reporting_undisclosed_paid_editors. They also deal with a lot of conflict of interest stuff (see WP:COI). Polygnotus (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you tell us more about these potential upcoming disclosures? Have they been reported on in reliable sources? Will they be in the future? Polygnotus (talk) 07:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, will do. Thank you for the support. Frantic and I dare say not entirely polite messages this afternoon to my partner were not appreciated. Just need to figure out our rights. Daronandon (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

My partner expects there will be. They were like OMG WTF when they got the lowdown totally uncut version of how young profs are treated there. Daronandon (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

"we renounce making any further edits to all non-talk wikipedia pages" Our policy on WP:SHAREDACCOUNTs does not have a carve-out for shared accounts used only to comment on Talk pages. In any case, I've raised the matter of Abdelrahman at the BLP noticeboard as I can't imagine any universe in which this is an appropriate redirect. I'll withhold comment on the rest of this ... creative ... narrative. Chetsford (talk) 00:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The way they wrote it does not necessarily imply a shared account, right? Polygnotus (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Only one edit was made to the redirect page in question [7], but that single edit was described in this way: "We are ashamed to say we did this". This seems to describe two humans collaboratively operating a single Wikipedia account. Chetsford (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Polygnotus For removal of doubt I declare personal responsibility for all edits and as noted in my bio, my preferred pronouns are plural (they/them). This is an expression of gender identity, not non-singularity. Moreover it should be clear that I am not a person who blindly takes orders from others... simply because Cambridge asked for something to be done on their behalf. Daronandon (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

For the record, let me just make note that during the first seven days of your presence on WP, you've exclusively and repeatedly self-referred using the first person singular pronoun "I" (e.g. [8], [9], etc.). Your adoption of "we" occurred only today (day 8) after our policy on shared accounts was brought to your attention. Moreover, you introduced this thread by referring to your "partner" in a way that would reasonably indicate they were a separate corporeal entity ("a former student of the department") and not a simultaneously realized component of your identity occupying the same physical form.
That said, however, you are obviously entitled to adjust the expression of your identify any way or time you like and I certainly respect your decision to now self-refer as "we" instead of "I". Thank you for this explanation. Chetsford (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

We (my partner and I - so plural) are waiting on third party advice before saying anything more. Some further communications in past 24h got a bit intense. Daronandon (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

OK things just escalated in a major way. We will be communicating via the email address provided. Daronandon (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't think Abdelrahman's name should redirect to the article about the murder, it would kinda suck if my name ended up being a redirect to a murder, so I have nominated that redirect for deletion. I don't think that Abdelrahman is currently WP:NOTABLE (see WP:GNG) so I don't think the best solution would be to write an article about Abdelrahman. Polygnotus (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for opening that, Polygnotus. Providing the link to the discussion here as it may be relevant to other editors active on this article. Chetsford (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Sentiment check: Resolution of degrees sub-section

Discussion about how to resolve the "degrees" sub-section seems to have stalled out as the discussion pivoted to talk of an editor's off-WP recruitment into a conspiracy being masterminded by the alumni club and the deposed heir to the duchy of Alsace-Lorraine or something.
To get back on track, I'm wondering if we can get a quick, non-RfC sentiment check to see where we netted out on this?

Should content between "At the postgraduate..." and "... Gender Studies" be ...

• A: ... deleted and replaced with "At the postgraduate level, the department offers nine master's programmes and four PhD programmes".
• B: Left as is
• C: Something else

Chetsford (talk) 01:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I love quiche. @Chetsford: What do you think and why? I am leaning toward A but I am going to ping @PARAKANYAA: so I can steal their opinion and present it as my own. Polygnotus (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, so this was why that redirect got nominated for deletion... after reading the page and the very interesting talk page history, I'm inclined towards A. It would depend on if this is typically included information in similar articles of an equal or higher quality, which from my search it does not seem to be. Given it's entirely sourced to the pages of the respective programs and not any secondary source, it makes me lean towards A, as that's very catalog-type and not encyclopedic information. I don't think this reads particularly promotionally though, more an issue of due weight. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Cordless Larry and Helmut.groetzi-genf: who may or may not have an opinion about these things. Polygnotus (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The first option sounds best to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford: To me, it looks like we have enough of a consensus here. Would you do the honours? Polygnotus (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Chetsford (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Polygnotus (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Sentiment check: Resolution of research centres

The next item that was discussed, but the discussion diverted, is resolution of the table. Here are some options that have been discussed. Apologies if I missed anything.

• A: Replace the table with the pre-table version in which they're presented as a bullet-point list (see: [10]).
• B: Delete the table and move all its references to the sentence "Ten specialised centres are housed within the department".
• C: Keep the table.
• D: Do something else.

Chetsford (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

B or C. I added the table [11] in the first place merely as a preferred way of presenting the information that was originally in a bullet-point list per MOS:DLIST which suggests tables are preferred "when more than 2 pieces of information are of interest to each list item". At the time, I didn't have an opinion either way as to its inclusion or non-inclusion. That said, this information may be qualitatively different than the list of degrees since, from my cursory online search, it appears the centres produce research under their own names and this table may be useful to our readers seeking to understand the relationship between, for instance, the Centre for Geopolitics and the Cambridge Department of Politics (indeed, it may be helpful to turn the name of each centre itself into a redirect). Two of the ten centres may be marginal WP:N and so, IMO, we risk getting into an eventual position in which we only name two centres and leave the other eight a mystery, or we acknowledge in some way that all ten exist. Chetsford (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Pinging User:Polygnotus, User:Cordless Larry, User:Helmut.groetzi-genf, User:PARAKANYAA, User:Dm980cam, User:Daronandon. Sorry if I missed anyone. Chetsford (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford: Which 2 may have marginal notability? The table takes up a lot of space because the, in my view, unnecessary additions of fluff like the logos and the names of the directors. I expect that our readers don't have to be told that the focus of the Centre of African Studies is African studies and the focus of the Centre of Development Studies is Development studies. Graphic design is very difficult and most of these logos look horrible, especially in dark mode. (sorry not sorry). So I would keep the table (option C) but also remove the fluff (option D). A simple table containing only the names of the centres should be fine imo. I am also fine with adding a second column for the URLs if people feel strongly that these should be included. A sentence with 10 references like option B feels like WP:OR to me, you'd need a source that says there are 10 centres. I am also not opposed to option A. Polygnotus (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree that, if we remove all information other than the centre names, we should go back to A, or preferably D (a list in narrative, versus bullet-point, form). There's no point in having a table with only one piece of information in each row, tables should only be used if presenting multiple pieces of information across each unit. A bulleted list with ten bullets exceeds good taste, which is why my preference would be a narrative form list if we go that route. Chetsford (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Polygnotus (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Having a table there looks odd and much of the detail is irrelevant (unless the aim is to demonstrate that Cambridge has been unsuccessful in establishing a unified visual identity). I would think it would be better to give just the names of the centres and possibly their focus (where this isn't obvious from the name) as a narrative list. Robminchin (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The focus of these centres is already a subset of their names, there are no cases where it isn't obvious. Assuming people understand that the Cambridge Centre for Political Thought focuses on Political theory. Polygnotus (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Overall, I don't want to get involved in this conversation. I want to focus on accuracy rather than form. As long as it mentions 10 centres rather than 7 or 12 then I'm good.

Just for information, Polygnotus mentions the need for 'a source that says there are 10 centres'. It's on the department website. I've had mixed messages about whether the POLIS website is referenceable, but there is a page that includes more information about all the centres. If we say 10 centres without the full list then we could link it to that: https://www.polis.cam.ac.uk/about-us/centres-and-institutes Dm980cam (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure what mixed messages you've received, but of course the POLIS website is referenceable. See WP:ABOUTSELF. And that source would be fine for the claim that there are 10 Centres and Institutes. Polygnotus (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The current table doesn't serve readers well. Importantly, it also violates Wikipedia guidelines and practices. The external links clearly violate WP:EL and WP:NOTDIR. The directors are overly detailed and fail WP:DUE, in my opinion. And the logos don't seem necessary or helpful. If this information is important enough to include in this (or any other) article, you should be able to write a few lines about each of the items in the table to provide readers with the necessary context. So I recommend scrapping the table and developing prose. A bulleted list where each centre gets a brief entry with a few lines of prose would serve readers well. ElKevbo (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this approach. Chetsford (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd favour B (perhaps with one or two of the more notabe centres mentioned by name as examples) first. Failing that, A. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Sentiment check: Resolution of notable people section

The "notable people" section has the irrelevant examples template. How should this be resolved?

• A: Delete the entire section
• B: Delete the notability descriptions associated with each name
• C: Delete any persons included without a reference
• D: Delete the alumni
• E: Delete the faculty
• F: Keep as-is
• G: Something else
• H through Z∞: Selectively delete the following individuals: _____, _____, _____, etc.

Chetsford (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• C or B Lists of notable alumni are so common across the encyclopedia, both at the university and departmental levels, that it's nearly an unwritten MOS maxim. The excessive examples template relates to our guideline MOS:LONGSEQ which does not suggest we remove WP:N persons from a list-in-article because we don't subjectively think they're "N-enough", but because "material within a list should relate to the article topic without going into unnecessary detail". The list has all but the bare minimum of detail already: a list of names and brief notability descriptions. The only way, therefore, that this could be truncated per LONGSEQ is to either remove the names of the people or remove the brief notability descriptions and removing their names would be nonsensical. One possible other option would be to spin this off into a standalone list, though it's not an option I'd support as the list is so short already that we'd just be creating a target for nomination to merge back here. Chetsford (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
• Pinging User:Polygnotus, User:Cordless Larry, User:Helmut.groetzi-genf, User:PARAKANYAA, User:Dm980cam, User:Daronandon. Sorry if I missed anyone. Chetsford (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Should we interpret *F: Keep as-is as: "Every notable person can be mentioned, no matter how irrelevant"? Polygnotus (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to write for our readers. People are allowed to post WP:FANCRUFT to their personal webpages, but it has no place on Wikipedia. The University of Cambridge has existed since before dinosaurs invented barbecue sauce. The amount of notable people who attended is in the hundreds or thousands. Looking at Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#The_six_good_article_criteria it says: it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). The level of detail is clearly WP:UNDUE. A section like Notable alumni is basically useless to 99% of readers. Because its a sea of blue links you can't even click a specific link on mobile. While the uni may or may not have had a large influence on the individual, the individual often had little to no influence on a uni that has existed for 816 years (usually they became notable after leaving the uni, for a different reason, and only spent a small portion of their life there). It is clearly excessive to list every single person who has ever been there as a student or a teacher or a janitor. I am fine with keeping people who have made a deep lasting impact on the uni. I am also not opposed to saying x presidents x prime ministers x Nobel laureates and x heads of state et cetera (if a source can be found). Polygnotus (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

"The University of Cambridge has existed since before dinosaurs invented barbecue sauce. The amount of notable people who attended is in the hundreds or thousands." I'd generally disagree with the notion that some sections that are appropriate for Florida Polytechnic University are inappropriate for Cambridge which is the route we're going down by uniquely proscribing this very common section in our univ articles (described extensively in our widely used essay WP:UNIGUIDE) for this specific university. Moreover, this specific department -- insofar as I can tell -- has only existed for 15 years so it's not like we're pulling in 800 years of people. Chetsford (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford:I'd generally disagree with the notion that some sections that are appropriate for Florida Polytechnic University are inappropriate for Cambridge But that is the essence of WP:SPLIT. We can't treat all topics the same because not all topic fit the same mold. Not being flexible is not an option because there is such a wide range of encyclopedic topics. Thanks for linking to WP:UNIGUIDE, I wasn't aware of that, and it says Individual notable alumni should be mentioned only in extraordinary cases; typically, statistics such as "X Nobel laureates" are preferred which is excellent advice and precisely what I've been trying to say. Polygnotus (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The part of UNIGUIDE you cited refers to the lead of the article, not the body. Further down, it suggests we include a section titled "Noted People": "This section should give a sense of the extent to which persons with well-known deeds or highly significant accomplishments are or have been associated with the school (as by attendance there or by being on staff or faculty). For most schools this might take the form of a list of people meeting Wikipedia's notability standards (each with perhaps a very brief descriptive phrase), where such a list would not be excessively long." The current list is compliant with UNIGUIDE. The suggestion to remove it is to override our long-standing and widespread precedent and apply a unique requirement on this university, and only this, university. Chetsford (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford: See Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice#Other_sections_and_material. No, the idea that articles should not have excessive focus on irrelevant details/fancruft is not a new suggestion, and I am not sure why you try to frame it as such. And UNIGUIDE says limiting the explicit list to very well-known persons (heads of state, historical figures, etc.) and adding a narrative summary of statistics on such things as Nobel Prizes, other prestigious awards, and so on.. But you've read that already, right? Polygnotus (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

That relates to "very old" institutions where the list would be excessively long. This department is 15 years old and the list here has like 30 people on it. Chetsford (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The department is not the institution, obviously, and the institution is over 800 years old. Polygnotus (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

This institution - the Department of Politics at the University of Cambridge - is not the University of Cambridge. It is a child institution housed within its parent. There is zero concern here we are going to have to include hundreds of alumni dating back to 1387 if the department has only been around since 2009. Chetsford (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Please respond below, I created a new subheader. Polygnotus (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

This is correct – the 'institution' in the UNIGUIDE clearly refers to the subject of the article. Robminchin (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The relevant part of UNIGUIDE is For very old, very large, or very prestigious schools it may be more appropriate to use categories ("Alumni of", "Faculty of", etc. note that "Alumni" categories are only for former students, including graduates; current students are not considered alumni) instead, limiting the explicit list to very well-known persons (heads of state, historical figures, etc.) and adding a narrative summary of statistics on such things as Nobel Prizes, other prestigious awards, and so on. so it is unclear what you are referring to. Polygnotus (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

The guideline about individual notable alumni is for the lead, not the body, so isn't relevant here. What is relevant is the section on noted people, which says "For most schools this might take the form of a list of people meeting Wikipedia's notability standards (each with perhaps a very brief descriptive phrase), where such a list would not be excessively long. For very old, very large, or very prestigious schools it may be more appropriate to use categories ("Alumni of", "Faculty of", etc." There doesn't seem to be any reason not do to this here, as there isn't sufficient material to split off a list article. Robminchin (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

That is incorrect. See Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice#Other_sections_and_material. And it was already explained over at Talk:University_of_Oxford#Notable_alumni. I will build my Evil Genius lair at the Arecibo Observatory. Polygnotus (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice#Other_sections_and_material appears to just be you complaining to Robminchin and TSventon about the list of alumni at the University of Oxford article. Is there a consensus there that you're referring to that I'm missing? Chetsford (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you posted the wrong link, and yes you are missing something. Polygnotus (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You're right, sorry. Correct link: Talk:University_of_Oxford#Notable_alumni. But it still just seems to be you yelling at Robminchin and TSventon?Chetsford (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

What is incorrect? That you quoted from the section on the lead of the article is incontrovertible and my quote was directly from the section on noted people.

In~the discussion you link you say that "While the uni may or may not have had a large influence on the individual, the individual often had little to no influence on a uni that has existed for 928 years" and that you are "fine with keeping people who have made a deep lasting impact on the un", but there is nothing in WP:UNIGUIDE to support this view and you received no support for it in that discussion. Instead, the guide says: "This section should give a sense of the extent to which persons with well-known deeds or highly significant accomplishments are or have been associated with the school (as by attendance there or by being on staff or faculty)." Robminchin (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

What is incorrect? You wrote: The guideline about individual notable alumni is for the lead, not the body, so isn't relevant here. But if you look at Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_advice#Other_sections_and_material you see that it is not about the lead at all, but about the Noted people section (aka Notable alumni/Notable people). And WP:UNIGUIDE is not a guideline but an advice page. See WP:CONLEVEL and all that. my quote was directly from the section on noted people Exactly, the section on Noted people and not the lead, so why do you claim that UNIGUIDE is only for the lead? This is such a weird discussion. Polygnotus (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

"Should we interpret *F: Keep as-is as: "Every notable person can be mentioned, no matter how irrelevant"? I don't know what "irrelevant" means in this context. You've previously indicated that you believe Nadine Chahine is "irrelevant". I guess you don't like her or something? Not sure. I think if there are specific people you really don't like and want removed, then you'd opine for H through Z and demand we exile Nadine Chahine to the Phantom Zone. I'd assume we should interpret F as '"compliance with the advice of WP:UNIGUIDE": every notable person should be kept until the list is too long and needs to be spun-off into a standalone article. Chetsford (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You clearly misinterpret UNIGUIDE, which aligns with my views. Have you read it? I posted a link to it. And I asked you to explain why you believe that, below. And no, I don't know who these people are, which is the point I am making obviously. No one knows who those people are, which means that their inclusion in that list is not helpful to anyone. Polygnotus (talk) 04:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

"No one knows who those people are, which means that their inclusion in that list is not helpful to anyone." Uhhhh ... okay. Chetsford (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

They should, by definition, be notable people to have a Wikipedia article. If you believe nobody knows who they are, then that's something to be discussed on those articles. Robminchin (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Notable is not the same as well-known/famous. These people meet the requirements in WP:NOTABLE. But so do I. A list of names of people who meet the requirements of GNG or one of our SNGs is unhelpful to the readers because in most cases the reader has no clue who those people are. There are an insane amount of WP:BLPs on Wikipedia. It may be of interest to a reader that someone very famous went to the same uni/school. But how does it help people to known that someone they don't know who barely met GNG or one of the SNGs went to that school? Polygnotus (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Can you explain why you believe we need to tell the average reader that Nadine Chahine went to this department? Or Rohan Sajdeh? How does that information help them? Polygnotus (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Robminchin: Since Chetsford keeps dodging this question, can you answer it? How does the information that some barely notable unknowns attended help the casual reader of an article about a department of a uni? If you can't answer this question then there is no added value, right? Polygnotus (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Probably because it's already been answered: "This section should give a sense of the extent to which persons with well-known deeds or highly significant accomplishments are or have been associated with the school (as by attendance there or by being on staff or faculty). For most schools this might take the form of a list of people meeting Wikipedia's notability standards (each with perhaps a very brief descriptive phrase), where such a list would not be excessively long."

As noted below, inclusion of such lists is standard in articles with GA status, as being consistent with the GA requirements for staying on-topic without giving unnecessary detail. There is little doubt that there is community consensus to include such lists. Robminchin (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

But you've yet to answer it. The question is How does the information that some barely notable unknowns attended help the casual reader of an article about a department of a uni? How can I tell the extent to which persons with well-known deeds or highly significant accomplishments are or have been associated with the school based on the information that some barely notable unknowns attended? If I don't know who someone is, and their BLP shows they only barely are notable, how does listing their name help me determine the extent to which persons with well-known deeds or highly significant accomplishments are or have been associated with the school? And if that is the goal, we should just use summary style as recommended by UNIGUIDE and list only those who are very very famous. Polygnotus (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain why you believe we need to tell the average reader that Nadine Chahine went to this department? How does that information help them? Polygnotus (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Since our project-wide modus operandi is to either include lists of notable alumni, or spin them off into a new article, (see: WP:UNIGUIDE) that's not the right question to ask. The right question is: can you explain why you believe we need to hide the fact that Nadine Chahine went to this department? How does concealing this information from readers assist in their comprehension of this topic? Chetsford (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford: No, we are writing an encyclopedia with the goal to inform people, not an indiscriminate collection of information. So please don't dodge the question but try to answer it. How does the information that some barely notable unknowns attended help the casual reader of an article about a department of a uni? If you can't answer this question then there is no added value, right? See WP:ONUS. Polygnotus (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not "dodging" the question, it's just not the right forum for it. The discussion to deviate from our longstanding precedent of including notable alumni in institutional articles needs to be a holistic one, not limited to to this article unless you can enunciate a clear reason why we need to apply unique criteria to this one, specific article that we don't apply elsewhere. Which you haven't done. You're welcome to take it up at the Higher Education WikiProject, though, and I'll be happy to answer it there. Chetsford (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford: Please answer the question where it was asked. And, like I stated before, the idea that articles should not have excessive focus on irrelevant details/fancruft is not a new suggestion, and I am not sure why you try to frame it as such. If you can't answer why these people need to be included, then why are you here arguing for their inclusion? Polygnotus (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Nawww, I think you kinda jumped the shark with this: "No one knows who those people are, which means that their inclusion in that list is not helpful to anyone." Thanks for the interesting discussion, though! Chetsford (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You used this trick already. Boring. Polygnotus (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I am of the strong opinion that the common practice in college and university articles of including lengthy, indiscriminate lists of notable people serve our readers very poorly. We should leave the lists to list articles and in focus on crafting informative prose with helpful examples in this and other articles. ElKevbo (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, advocating for absolutely unconditional inclusion, without any exceptions, is likely not a widely held opinion. Polygnotus (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

"absolutely unconditional inclusion, without any exceptions, is likely not a widely held opinion" Agreed. Fortunately WP:UNIGUIDE establishes a standard of conditional inclusion, namely: "people meeting Wikipedia's notability standards". Chetsford (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

You clearly misinterpret UNIGUIDE, which aligns with my views. And that is not the standard of inclusion according to UNIGUIDE. Polygnotus (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a horse in this race; I just want to point out that, regardless of what WP:UNIGUIDE says, there are vastly different precedents for alumni and faculty lists. The two universities I tend to use as direct comparators are Oxford and Harvard. Oxford Politics only lists a dozen alumni and no faculty and the Harvard Kennedy School lists about 150 alumni and 75 faculty. So, the fact that POLIS is somewhere in between might be about right.

Fun Fact: Florida Polytechnic University, which Chetsford mentioned earlier, lists neither alumni nor faculty. Dm980cam (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I will just note that it would be better to look at GA or FA articles. The Harvard article is clearly way over the top and should be summarised in this instance. The Oxford list is much shorter, but most of the people they lost for not actually attend the department the article is about (which was founded in 2000), so that's not exactly great as a guide either. At 33 alumni, this article has a much shorter list than Harvard but it is long enough that presenting it as a narrative list would be better than the current bulleted list. Robminchin (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Looking at FA and GA-class articles for sub-university entities is a good idea. It does seem there is a wide degree of variance: those who include notable people in a bullet list (Oxford College of Emory University and Rosenstiel School of Marine, Atmospheric, and Earth Science), those who list only a selection of alumni in a bullet list with "main article" links to a holistic list (University of Missouri School of Music), those who use narrative form (Marriott_School_of_Business#Alumni). (The only thing I can't find are articles in which editors vote on which notable persons are in the "No one knows who those people are"" class and should be concealed from readers.) Chetsford (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's look at the criteria for FA:

It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.

And GA:

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Polygnotus (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

So including such lists, as is done in those GA articles, is clearly consistent with staying focused on the topic and is not considered unnecessary detail. I also note that two of these have been relatively recently considered as FA candidates and the inclusion of the list was not picked up as an issue in either case. Robminchin (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Robminchin: So you disagree with this other guy who happens to also use the name Robminchin? See Talk:University_of_Oxford#Notable_alumni. I agree that GA/FA reviews leave much to be desired if that is your point. Polygnotus (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

That was discussing an article for a large university (60,000 students) that's almost 200 years old, clearly falling into the "very old, very large, or very prestigious schools" category, and where there was a split-off article already covering alumni in detail (which is four times larger than this entire article). This is an article about a department less than 2% of that size and less than 10% of that age, which is why we are looking at GAs on similar sized sub-university entities. Robminchin (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

But I am obviously not just talking about this article. And the idea that it makes little sense to list a bunch of names of barely notable people applies to both large and small schools/unis/departments/whatever. Rohan Sajdeh is probably a lovely person but it does not help the readers of this article in any way to tell them that he attended this department on this article. Polygnotus (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

This is the discussion page for this article, and discussion here should be about this article. If you want to discuss this more generally you need to take it to a different venue. Robminchin (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works, many discussions start somewhere and then later get moved or referenced in a more suitable location. And I agree with what appears to be the consensus. Polygnotus (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

RfC: "Notable people" section

A recent, informal discussion produced a lot of opinions but no clear consensus.

Should the "notable people" section in this article be:

• A: Deleted
• B: Kept as a bulleted list of notable people
• C: Converted to prose description / narrative list of notable people
• D: Converted to prose description / narrative list and limited to the following people: ______, ______, _______, etc.
• E: Something else

(I included the above options as those that appear to have been supported by at least one person in the informal discussion. My apologies if I missed or misrepresented something.) Chetsford (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• B or C without prejudice to revisiting if the list were to grow to 40+ names in the future. A "noted/notable people" section is a customary fixture for university articles and is widely incorporated even in our sub-institutional FA/GA articles (see: [12], [13], [14], [15], etc.). WP:UNIGUIDE provides guidance as to how to address these sections: "For most schools this might take the form of a list of people meeting Wikipedia's notability standards". An alternate approach is provided by UNIGUIDE for lists that would be excessively long, but that doesn't really apply here as we only have about 30 names. Arbitrarily selecting a subset of notable people based on our subjective opinion of who is "famous" is neither a best practices approach nor one we use anywhere else and should not be uniquely applied to this specific article without a clear and compelling reason. Chetsford (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• This is clearly another attempt to sidestep the discussion and existing consensus while misrepresenting my POV. Unfortunately we don't have a great way to deal with RFCs that are not WP:RFCNEUTRAL so it is easy to game the system. Polygnotus (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Now you are doing it again. Another WP:POINTY RFC. Facepalm And again its not WP:RFCNEUTRAL. And the option I am arguing in favor of is not even listed. Polygnotus (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Please feel free to add your preferred option. Chetsford (talk) 20:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC); edited 20:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I very much doubt that. Polygnotus (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford: you added Please feel free to add your preferred option. but that would require rewriting the question so that it actually deals with what the discussion was about. An RFC is in the question-answers format so I cannot add my preferred answer without rewriting the question. So if you genuinely want to have a fair RFC where both sides get the chance to present their point of view, then delete this entire RFC. You have my permission to remove this entire section including my comments. Then we can work together to make a new RFC. Polygnotus (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it's fine as is. Chetsford (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Chetsford: How incredibly unsurprising. It is only a problem if you want to fairly represent both sides of a discussion. Polygnotus (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)