Category talk:Unassessed University of Oxford articles

Classification, St Edmund Hall, Oxford
Right, in an effort to start classifying the articles in the project I've assigned a preliminary rating of B and a Top importance, here's why. Arguably, the collegiate system is one of the most fundamental parts of the distinctive oxford experience and so I would like to make the case that no encyclopaedic entry would be complete without detailing the various colleges and permanent private halls. With that in mind I would also like to nominate all college/pph entries as being of Top importance to the project. As far as standard goes, I think the article as is provides an excellent summary of the college history and purpose within the context of the university. I don't think we can improve the article without a much more detailed history and better quality images. That being said, if anyone deems different classifications more appropriate then please go ahead. AulaTPN 13:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * All sounds pretty sensible! On reflection I'd support the idea that the main articles of the colleges should be top-importance. I had put those I'd edited so far down as high-importance, purely as the first I did was University of Oxford and the collegegs seemed less important than the main article. If we kept to this scheme though, the top-importance category would never have more than one or two article! It's certainly a good idea for all colleges to be deemed of equal importance -- while non-Oxonians might generally be more interested in the more "obvious" colleges, we don't want to cause friction between project members and would-be members by trying to discriminate between their colleges.


 * To extend this sort of thinking, I'd have though that in general:
 * most university departments should be high-importance, along with any on very important university people (recent chancellors and VCs, and a few key historical figures like Bodley);
 * articles about individual departmental and college buildings/sub-units might be expected to be mid-importance, as might those on chairs, senior academics and so on; and
 * articles on people who went to Oxford, less well-known (but still notable) academics etc. might be deemed to be of low importance to the project.
 * Obviously these would be very broad-brush guidelines, the sort of thing I might have in mind but be very willing to depart from for the least reason! Casper Gutman 15:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)