Talk:Degrees of the University of Bristol

Requested move[edit]

I created this page with the wrong capitalization of 'u' and 'b'. Oops - sorry.

Splash 01:09, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

A page that's crying out for deletion, I'm afraid. Why is this notable in any way? There seems to be almost nothing unique about Bristol degrees- why couldn't this be merged with another UK higher-education article? Badgerpatrol 23:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could say the same for everything in Category:University of Bristol. In principle, yes, I agree with you; merge into University of Bristol or delete outright? - mholland 00:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say delete outright unfortunately (or convert into a general standalone UK degrees page); there just doesn't seem to be anything notable in here at all. A quick glance at the rest of the category suggests that not all of it is baloney though- the only ones that I might definitely suggest for the chop would be Academic dress of the University of Bristol (which should be merged with the main UoB article) and *ahem* Bristol University Latin American and Ballroom Dancing Society (which is useless). Cheers, Badgerpatrol 23:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I made this page and the other page you think is crap is because the Uni article is already very long, and we are to try to keep page size down to less than 32kb. This is also why I removed the PROD tag. -Splash^talk 00:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added prod tag. This article is non-notable and merely repeats information from other pages, e.g. Academic degrees. From my reading of the page and from my own knowledge, there is nothing noteworthy or unusual whatsoever about the way Bristol hands out degrees, or the degrees they hand out. If anyone disagrees, please state reasons, remove the prod tag, and we can consider whether or not AfD is in order (unless said reason is very good, in my opinion it definitely is). Cheers, and sorry, because obviously some effort has gone into the page. Badgerpatrol 00:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, AfD it is then. Why is this topic in any way notable? Badgerpatrol 00:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable? Notability is diffcicult to apply to such things, I think. It's the details of the degrees awarded by a major University in the UK. Redirect it somewhere, or merge it back into the Uni article (and make it massively over 32kb), but why outright deletion? -Splash^talk 00:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is notability difficult to apply? What material is covered in this article that does not appear elsewhere in general academic degree articles? I see nothing unusual or different whatsoever about the way Bristol awards degrees- why does this article exist where no corresponding one can be found for (to my knowledge) any other UK university? I don't see anything encyclopaedic about this information to make it worth preserving- at the VERY most, all I would personally do is place a one-line summary in the main University of Bristol article along the lines of 'Bristol awards degrees in a similar fashion to almost every other British university- see Academic degrees'. I don't really think even that is worthwhile, to be honest. Would you rather every UK university had a similar page, 99% of which would be virtual mirrors of one another? Please explain your reasoning, I am confused. Badgerpatrol 01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't sound in the least confused. Why do the other articles not exist? That would be because noone made them yet. It is peculiar to suggest that the degree awarding practises of a major University in the United Kingdom are likely to be of utterly zero interest to all readers of an encyclopedia and all those who come here to learn how the University works. It is more peculiar still to suggest that it is of such obvious disinterest as to think that it PRODable. It strikes me that you may not have read University of Bristol, for your middle suggestion is precisely what has already been done, the aim being to provide the information to those who seek it whilst not overloading an already-long article with information that is self-contained enough to stand alone. -Splash^talk 01:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Splash- First of all, please try not to take this personally. I fully appreciate that effort has gone into this page, as I described in my edit above. I first left a note on this page outlining my intentions 6 weeks ago, and heard nothing from you or anyone else, apart from one assent. Within a few seconds of my placing the prod tag, you popped up. If you feel that it would serve wiki to include dozens if not hundreds of new pages mirroring almost exactly the same content, then I am surprised. I do think you would be in the minority in that view. I have read University of Bristol and it is an excellent page, in that it contains encyclopaedic information specifically pertinent to Bristol and does not mirror content more obviously available on other general pages. I intend to pursue the AfD, and the community can decide whether to delete or merge, if the general feeling is that some information of encyclopaedic value can be salvaged. Again, I really apologise that you seem to be annoyed, there is no bad faith here, I just do not see the merit of the page. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 01:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information in the commentary at the end of the article says what it is that is different about this pattern of awards to others. Why throw that away? -Splash^talk 01:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if merging those paragraphs to some extent into the main article would appease you, or whether you think the information to be of worldwide, permanent irrelevance? -Splash^talk 01:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a compromise, I reckon that's a pretty good idea. I'm not personally convinced that even that info is really worth keeping, but there is certainly enough ambiguity to make it at least worthwhile merging that into the main Bristol page and, I'm afraid, ditching the rest. If the consensus among editors is that it shouldn't be there, then it'll be whittled out anyway, if the opposite then it shall remain. You have summed up my general point very well- it is worth preserving the information that is different from other universities, not that which is the same (i.e. the vast majority of Degrees of the University of Bristol). I still feel that the article is not noteworthy (r.e. its content, not presentation, which is v. good) but if you feel strongly that some of the info should be preserved, I am happy to forego the RfD- I don't like doing it anyway. Again, I'm sorry that you were annoyed- this could all have been discussed several weeks ago, I do feel that I gave fair warning. However, if you didn't see it, you didn't see it. In short: Yes, go ahead and merge those paras with University of Bristol. Cheers and all the best, Badgerpatrol 01:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally, we can't remove the redirect since it contains the history of the material, and the GFDL says we have to retain that (this is standard procedure following a merge). I'm not annoyed, I'm just making you defend your point vigorously. I have approx 1000 pages and their talk pages on my watchlist, and it is hard to spot every one as it goes by. -Splash^talk 01:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -Splash^talk 02:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]