Talk:Royal Holloway, University of London/Archive 1

In Popular Culture, Addition
In the November 2007 TV serial 'Britz' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britz_%28TV_serial%29) the main character Sohail Waheed in one of the first few scenes can be seen occupying the south quad (geography?) where the statue and the Crosslands bar lies. JRPritchard (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with the word "College"?
Am I the only person wondering why University of London colleges are steadily dropping the word "College" from their colloquial names? We have "Royal Holloway, University of London", "Birkbeck, University of London", and "Queen Mary, University of London". "Queen Mary" is the silliest sounding because Queen Mary was so obviously somebody's name. "Thomas Holloway, University of London" or "George Birkbeck, University of London" would sound even sillier. What is wrong with the word "College"? The only sensible ones I can think of are Christ Church, Oxford and Peterhouse, Cambridge (and of course places called "Something Hall" - Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, for example). These make sense because they do include a substantive - "Church" and "-house". Is the U of L trying to sound grand by having eccentrically named colleges? Maybe SOAS will become "OAS"?

Secondly, what's wrong with Bedford and Westfield, as in Royal Holloway and Bedford New College and Queen Mary and Westfield College? I admit that "The King's Hall and College of Brasenose" has been shortened to "Brasenose College", but that evolved rather more gradually.--AlexanderLondon 00:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Joan M. Hussey and the Bedford/Royal Holloway distinction
Joan M. Hussey was active at both Bedford and Royal Holloway. I have added her as a significant member of staff because, although she does not fulfil the criteria for inclusion suggested below of being famous beyond academia, she was one of the most famous Byzantinists of her day and moreover she is still widely read today. Her importance in her field is second only to Norman H. Baynes and Steven Runciman.

However, I was provoked to wonder if there ought to be three separate articles to reflect the three institutions: Royal Holloway College, Bedford College, and Royal Holloway and Bedford New College (now known as Royal Holloway, University of London). As it is, Royal Holloway College redirects to this article, so that it seems to be about both Royal Holloway College and Royal Holloway and Bedford New College. There is therefore no distinction made between alumnae/i and staff of RHC and alumnae/i and staff of RHBNC, whereas there is a distinction made between those of Bedford and those of RHBNC. The implication is that RHBNC is in some way more of a continuation of RHC than it is of Bedford, which I suppose it is, given that it is at the site of the former RHC and Bedford has effectively been dropped from its name.--AlexanderLondon 00:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

George Eliot
Holloway was founded in 1879 and George Elliot died in 1880. How is it possible that she attended the college?


 * She probably went to Bedford College, which opened much earlier. It merged with Royal Holloway in 1985. Pcb21| Pete 11:31, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Picking up on this, what treatment should be made of Bedford College? Should it have a separate article or be redirected and incorporated here? I wanted to add an appropriate link to the article on Conrad Russell, but I'm not quite sure what to do. For the moment I've put "now part of Royal Holloway", which is a bit fussy. --rbrwr&plusmn; 20:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

link removal
Anon user removed link to: Anxiety in the UK, an article in The Guardian covering the recent racial attacks at Royal Holloway. User commented that it was: "heavily biased, one sided, flawed, irrelevant". I think such a claim of bias or irrelevance needs to be backed up. The attacks did happen, were reported and are an issue in the college. The college management has been issuing press releases detailing their interation with the ongoing police investigation, which led to arrests a few weeks ago. This Guardian article was linked beside another article from the same paper detailing the positive aspects of the college, so it is hard to see how a charge of bias can be held up. Pending further comment, I am reverting the changes. Seabhcán 13:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

-some idiot vandalized the page, changed it back to NPOV.

-the negative article is biased because it makes assumptions based on a selected few interviews and blows the situation out of proportion. Just because you link the biased article next to a positive one doesn't make it unbiased silly.


 * What you describe is standard writing for all newspaper articles. Please sign your posts. Seabhcán 23:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Student's Union POV Constant Reverts
I think there is some confusion as to the purpose of wikipedia and, by extension, of this page. It is emphatically NOT to serve as an advertisement for particular institutions, products or points of view. I believe this is clearly expressed in the editing guidelines. You state on the reverts page:

'This page needs to say more than info that's true about virtually every student union in Britain. Noting of views that are reasonably widely held (and backed-up by awards received) is legitimate'

To which I have three retorts: 1) Why does this page NEED to say more about SURHUL than is true for every other SU in Britain, except to serve as an advertisement for the SU and for Royal Holloway College? All it NEEDS to have are the FACTS about RHUL and the SU. This is an ENCYCLOPAEDIA, not a prospectus. 2) If you know that these views (i.e. POV) are widely held, then you must have canvassed at the very least a significant minority of the students in either the London area, or the whole of the UK, according to your statements. I would challenge you to demonstrate that this is the case. 3) My original comment explaining NPOV changes made (see below) clearly stated that if your claims as to perceived reputation could be SUBSTANTIATED empirically by e.g. external awards for the magazine, the student's union, or the end of term ball, then your statements would be valid. IF this is true for these things, then state the awards, who awarded them, and when they were won. That can only make the article better, which is what we all want.

Don't mean to start a big edit war over minor details, but it annoys me when wikipedia is used as an advertising medium- that's not what it's supposed to be.If your claims can be substantiated beyond your own point of view, then please put them back in- that's the whole point of wiki!

Cheers

(My original comment):

The Royal Holloway Students' Union (SURHUL) has a reputation for providing some of the best and most comprehensive on-campus social life, entertainment and student services of any students' union in the London area.

POV (see italics), removed it

SURHUL also publishes a student magazine called The Orbital, which is considered to be among Britain's best students' union magazines.

POV (see italics), removed it

The highlight of the social calendar at the college is the annual RHUL Summer Ball, which is run by the students' union and reputed to be among the best such events at any university or college in Britain. In recent years the RHUL Summer Ball has booked many high-profile talents, including well-known rock and pop acts such as Wheatus and Atomic Kitten, and comedians such as Ali G.

POV (see italics), removed it

It may be possible to substantiate the magazine claim (e.g. if it won an externally recognised award or similar) in which case put it back in. The rest (of the italicised portions) is opinion and is inapropriate. (In my day student's union reps were too busy drinking to find much time for contributing nonsense to internet encyclopaedias! Times have changed, obviously...)

Rankings
It states that RH was first for Physics in the UK ranked by the Guardian newspaper following on from the 2006 table. They are 2nd behind Queen Mary, University of London according to the report.

Again - when did RH ever come first in the Guardian for Physics? Can a citation be recognized? You have taken away the year 2006 and put in nothing. To make a statement like that will surely need a source. (Now erased due to innaccuracy (as the person moderating the page can't be bothered - User: Anon: 2nd April 2007) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.116.130 (talk • contribs).

I agree that this will need to be sourced, especially given how students deciding upon their university at the moment may be being misled by this article. Also, if you could tag the comments you make here, by leaving four '~'s after your comment, it would help make this less confusing, as it would be clear who said what. Zverzia 15:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Am I the only one who thinks some of this article reads like an RHUL prospectus? Surely the purpose of a Rankings section should be to detail how a particular university has fared in a common ranking that's referenced on most pages on its fellow local and national universities, rather than just listing the particular ranking that shows the institution at its best? Timrollpickering 01:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're not the only one, no. I think much could be trimmed from the article in the interests of objectivity. Badgerpatrol 02:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Alumni list
Should be split up into who went to Bedford, who went to Holloway Ladies' College, and who went to RHBNC. Bedford College is a TOTALLY separate institution in a totally separate place (central London)

Notable Staff List
Can the poster please justify the inclusion of these staff members (beyond being their favourite lecturers). I have been associated with the college for some years and I have personally never heard of some of them (this of course does not mean anything in itself, hence the reason why I ask for justification). Notable members of staff should have found some fame outside the college in the wider world, or as media figures, or as EXTREMELY accomplished academics within their chosen fields (e.g. Royal Soc fellows etc. for scientists, other major national or international external awards etc.). Being a member of RHUL staff does not make one notable in itself. Of the list, I think we can accept those already with wiki stubs (just) although in my view it isn't at all clear cut whether they really ought to be in this encyclopaedia at all to be honest. Of these:

Cesarani- appears to be notable as a media figure, primarily through his association with David Irving Bradby- Does not seem to be notable beyond his basic academic duties but he has a separate page and who am I to argue! Champion- Once presented a TV series as I recall, probably merits inclusion on that basis. The other 2 are the poet laureate and someone who has received an external high honour for public service- obvious keeps.

On my 'delete' list-

Cowan- a senior member of the physics department but no more. A quick glance at their dept website does not indicate why he is notable. Unwin- as above. All I can tell from his website is that he likes a tipple. Google is not any more informative. If he is involved with wine as some sort of media expert then he may merit inclusion, although I can find no evidence that this is so. Rastle- Seemingly a relatively unimportant member of the psychology department and not obviously notable even in her own field. An obvious candidate for deletion.

Please bear in mind that I am not suggesting immediate deletion, but merely canvassing opinions. If no-one has come forward to explain the inclusion of these people in the next few days then I think it would be best to delete them. Of course if someone can subsequently make a case then the info can be reverted. As it stands this seems to be a rather embarassing case of vicarious (I presume) aggrandizement. Please feel free to comment, I don't want to step on anyone's toes. (Also note that I have similar problems with some of the 'famous' alumni, although this is less clear cut).81.157.183.114 21:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Notable members of staff
I have deleted Cowan, as I do not see why he is notable beyond his status as an academic at RHUL- that alone is not enough. If someone can justify his inclusion here, then fair enough. I realise that there is a fine line to be drawn here, but I think including academics solely because they are people's favourite lecturers is puffery and degrades the article, which is not helpful to anyone. I suggest that unless RHUL academics are known in the wider world (e.g. as authors or commentators), or are e.g. members of distinguished learned societies (Cowan is not a FRS, for example) or have received high honours or external awards, then they are not of sufficient merit. Sections of this nature are not obvious in other UK academic articles, and I think it is really a bit of a licence for silly and wrong-headed inclusions based on subjective grounds. I note for example that ALL of the current notable members of staff are currently teaching at RHUL, despite the 100+ years history of the college/s. That is not encyclopaedic, and some inclusions in the past (see page history) have been ridiculous. I would advocate renaming and rejigging this section. For reference re suitability for inclusion, see e.g.  | biographies of living persons, | academic guidelines, and | notability. Comments welcome. Badgerpatrol 00:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For example, I just added Michael Eysenck- his colloboration and association with his father arguably makes him notable in itself, but I believe his academic output is also of sufficient quality. Please discuss if you disagree. Badgerpatrol 03:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Notable members of staff
Regarding Brian Cowan, Head of Department of Physics, I don't consider he should be removed from the list of staff members. He is a leading professor in the field of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance and Relaxation. Unlike other academic fields, Physics is highly specialised and unless you are in the field you aren't likely to consider his achievements great! It should also be noted that in the article it is clearly stated that Royal Holloway's physics department is considered one of the best (and the best by The Guardian) in the United Kingdom and Prof Cowan has made significant contributions to attain this status.
 * There is no consensus currently regarding academics in Wikipedia, and therefore there is considerable room for leeway here (see | notability and links therein). BUT- a few general rules of thumb would seem to apply. Firstly, being a success in a given field is not in itself a criteria for inclusion. EVERY Professor is by definition a success in their field. There are dozens if not hundreds of Profs at RHUL; will it improve the encyclopaedia to include them all? Or would it most likely lead to a profusion of vanity pages and POV articles? As for Cowan specifically- is he notable in any way OUTSIDE of his field? Many physicists are. And even within it (as you say Physics is quite a specialised field academically), would we expect another physicist in a tangentially related field working in another country (say, the US or Australia or France) to have heard of him and be aware of his work? I can't answer that, but a Google search may be revealing:


 * "Brian Cowan" "Royal Holloway" = 106 Hits
 * "Brian Cowan" "University of Nottingham" = 20 Hits
 * "Brian Cowan" "University of Paris" = 25 Hits

In each case, large numbers of hits did not relate to the correct individual anyway. Google can sometimes be misleading- but whatever way you look at it, those are not impressive numbers. Apart from that, has Cowan received any high honours, inside of outside his field? Has he been, or do objective external sources consider him likely to be, awarded a Nobel Prize or Fields Medal, or indeed any notable academic prize? Does he have a knighthood or other honour? Is he a FRS? Has he been awarded an honourary doctorate? If so, I can't find any evidence. We should be careful about including people in this encyclopaedia simply because they are reasonably successful- many people are good at their jobs, but that doesn't make them notable. Badgerpatrol 19:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Student Accommodation
As noted due to works on campus there is a massive shortage of accommodation available in halls of residence. For the upcoming 2006/2007 academic year only the following qualify for halls (and are not necessarily guaranteed a place): Joining 1st year students, 4th year students (MSci only or students returning from years abroad), postgraduates and any that have received a scholarship to the university. It should also be noted that the areas (Egham, Englefield Green) surrounding Royal Hollway boast house and rent prices equivalent to central London despite being firmly outside of London.
 * I thought about including these points (and some other stuff, especially the allegations of racism and the recent spate of attacks around Englefield Green) in some kind of balanced 'criticisms' or 'local area' section. The reason I haven't done it is basically because I strongly suspect that it will lead to a lot of acrimony and will be constantly reverted. I should point out though that your list of eligible students is VERY extensive- if even most of those get a place in halls then the College can be fairly proud of its accommodation arrangements. There are very few (if any?) non-Oxbdidge UK unis that can afford accomm places to everyone that may want one, but I am not that familiar with the halls issue as it stands. If you want to include it and have sufficient awareness of the issue, then go ahead and be bold. Badgerpatrol 19:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Famous Alumni
Sophie Neveu does not count as Alumni! If Wikipedia tries to add every fictional character mentioned in text it may run in to problems!
 * Many alumnae pages have fictional characters. I don't agree with it either, but I think we are in the minority unfortunately. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 19:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely it does not matter that this view is in the minority, for the majority does not decide what truth is. Sophie Neveu from The Da Vinci Code did not attend Royal Holloway in real life because she is a character of fiction. She certainly ought to be mentioned, as an indication of Royal Holloway's reputation, but not as an Alumni because she is not real. User:J Gez M, 17:48 23rd February 2006.

Jazzygm 17:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Although wikipedia technically does not operate along democratic principles, obviously we have to be mindful of the opinion of others. The article as it stands is perfectly 'true' in the sense that this alumna is clearly marked out as fictional. I certainly think it really would degrade the quality of the article to mention the character in the text, but as one amongst a list of alumnae it is tolerable. If you don't agree, feel free to remove it, but I suggest that someone else is going to revert back sooner rather than later and the whole exercise will be rather pointless. However, it is of course up to you. Badgerpatrol 19:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Now you put it like that that it does seem to make rather more sense. Therefore I suppose that it is true and as it is marked as fictional the character ought to stay. J Gez M, 23:19,24th February 2006.

Notable staff
I recently added Professor Nigel Saul (eminent History scholar, writer of the only recent biography of Richard II and former Head of the History department.) However, it was taken off. I don't know who thinks they are so important that they can take people's recent editions just because they cant be bothered to check or havent heard of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.152.158 (talk • contribs)
 * That would be me. I did "bother" myself to check extensively before reverting your edits, and invited you to discuss your reasoning on this page-thank you for doing so. Please explain why this individual is any more notable than many, many other members of staff, all of whom are accomplished in their fields. You may also wish to generate a WP account, or at the very least sign your comments with your IP address by leaving 4 tildes ~ . Badgerpatrol 00:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Inspired partly by this little discussion between 84.13.152.158 and Badgerpatrol, I created articles about both Professor Nigel Saul and Professor Anthony Stockwell and put links to them on this page. I believe that are more notable than the average academic, and have renown that goes beyond the college itself. Hopefully the articles explain this. Dorange 03:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I don't agree that they do have renown that goes beyond the college itself, or at least that goes beyond their specific discipline. They do not seem to be significant media figures, as far as I can see. However, they are almost certainly notable enough for their own articles- but it does not necessarily follow that they should be included in a list of RHUL's cadre of most notable staff. There are, what, a thousand or so academic staff members at RHUL? I would surmise that 1 or 2 hundred of those rival Saul and Stockwell for notability and impact. I would only place people in the notable staff category if we can demonstrate that they are significant figures OUTSIDE of academia- i.e. by way of significant media exposure or other high-level external recognition. As I state elsewhere, in my opinion this section is basically a licence for subjective and questionable inclusions (note that I'm not accusing you of that, and I appreciate you taking the time to comment and write the two stubs). I am thinking of boldly removing the whole section anyway, unless a set of acceptable and objective criteria can be drawn up. A list of 1 or 2 hundred "notable" academics is not going to work, and that is what we will wind up with eventually. Badgerpatrol 14:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How come Justin Champion is notable when Peter Longerich is not? Entering his name into Google reveals plenty about him, and only him, such as his role in the David Irving trial. If he, as you said above, had a renown that only existed within RHUL, why is he on the German Wikipedia? Say this section is absurd all you want, but unless there is some clear guidelines as to who counts and who does not as a 'notable member of staff', it's a form of popularity contest. Zverzia 20:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right. I've ditched the section. Badgerpatrol 20:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe it should remain, in some form, although it may be given its own page. Look at Birkbeck's page, which has a longer list than the one here was. Is it not worth mentioning which academics of certain renown teach here? We don't have Stephen Hawking, but if academics are worthy of wikipedia pages (and not those created soley for the purpose of worship from adoring students), why should they not be linked to the institution they teach at? Is it not possible to decide upon either a criteria for 'notable academics', keeping the David Cesaranis and leaving out the Hugo Blakes (picking a random member of the history department), or to create a seperate page for them and link to it from this one? Is there any way of reaching a popular consensus? Zverzia 21:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: I've created an English Wikipedia page on Peter Longerich. Dorange 00:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Students' Union - seperate article?
The Students' Union section is bulky and largely irrelevant to the information about the college itself. The information within it is still useful, however. Should the content be moved to SURHUL and only a synopsis left in the main page? I understand there is some confusion on the notability of Student Union articles in the UK. Katy_Star12 12:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I had considered it, but I wasn't sure if it was notable enough on its own. I disagree that is overly bulky, however, as it still forms a vital part of Hollowegian life for many students and prospective students. Zverzia 13:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't notable, and the split article would be liable for deletion. Unfortunately, there is a fine line between what is encyclopaedic and what reads as a recruitment prospectus for the College. I'm not sure which side of theline this article is at present.... Badgerpatrol 15:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The notability of English Students' Unions remains a subject of confusion on Wikipedia. The extremely vocal left-wing union of SOAS was nominated for deletion, yet articles on the SU of the Universities of Hull & Plymouth still exist. The matter was brought up at Talk:Students' union, but no clear consensus was reached. SURHUL is notable in the national context only through its continued use of regular General Meetings and corresponding detailed bureaucracy, as opposed to other unions who run the generally-more-popular Annual GM system. It may also appear on account of its sporting prowess, but there is little else to make it any more or less special than, for example, the University of Newcastle's Students' Union. In regards to your other point, I don't believe the current section on SURHUL is particularly biased, as it largely factual with only one or two dubious statements (such as on the bar Medicene). I don't think it needs to be trimmed, although I certainly would not advocate any further expansion, especially along the lines of listing previous sabbaticals as the Hull SU article does. Zverzia 17:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Where is the confusion? I would suggest that the main reason that none of the Unions listed on the SU talk page have been deleted is because (from what I can see) none of them have ever been nominated to AfD. The SOAS page has been nominated and was deleted, which tells its own story. Non-notable Wiki articles do not just disappear of their own accord. As for SURHUL- the last time I checked, it was not by any means the only SU to have regular (i.e. more than one a year) general meetings, although this may have changed, and it is perhaps the only one to hold them once a month. I doubt if this alone is sufficient as a claim to notability; sporting prowess (unless absolutely spectacular) is not going to help either. Much of the SU material now borders in my opinion on the trivial, but this is a matter of opinion, more or less. One more thing- Portsmouth and Plymouth are not the same city.... Badgerpatrol 23:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Erm SOAS Students' Union is still there - it was not deleted. Oh and Queen Mary Students' Union also still has monthly general meetings. Timrollpickering 02:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is indeed! I think I must have missed the point that Zverzia is driving at then, although she might like to take a look at WP:DEL perhaps. Nominating an article for deletion means absolutely nothing in itself. Having said that, I still seriously question the notability of generic SUs (although it seems that that is not the consensus, and there appears to be no confusion). I agree about the SU GMs- I do not think RHUL is unique in any way. Badgerpatrol 02:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The Portsmouth/Plymouth slip shows up how tired I was yesterday evening! The point still stood, however, that generic SUs still had articles, and one or two had been saved from deletion, although not with any clear 'Keep' majority. In any case, SURHUL counts amongst these generic unions, perhaps even moreso through its apolitical status on national affairs, although how we differ greatly from Queen Mary Students' Union with its article is unclear. It would appear to me that various users have created pages on SUs without consultation as to whether they deserve them, and those which are for minor universities have not been noticed as much as, for example, that of SOAS, and these are used as cases to justify the larger SUs to be kept. In any case, such a discussion is more appropriate for Talk:Students' union than here. As far as this discussion on SURHUL goes, it is generic enough not to be notable, although I still believe it needs no trimming down where it is (but bear in mind I am biased as I've edited much of the section). Incidentally, I shall putting a photograph of it up sometime soon, although only one! Zverzia 15:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

University ratings
(I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on WikiProject Universities.)

There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. Timrollpickering 00:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Frightfully middle-class
I didn't enjoy my time at RHC, I'm afraid. It seemed full of over-privileged Sloane Rangers, talking about having 'morning rooms' in their houses and going on ski-ing holidays. They all seemed to be called either Emily or Sophie: the girls weren't much better.Dolmance 17:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I am sorry you didn't enjoy RHUL. I am currently a student there. Yes, there are some fightfully upper middle class people there but generally I have found the people there to be very grounded. Mostly state school educated and worrying about the bills like the rest of us. It is indeed a home counties uni, but it is more than that with much diversity also. All I can say is what you have said, our own opinions. Mine differs slightly.

Alumni notability
It's an embarassment to the college to have non-entities listed in the "notable" alumni section. The notability of many of these is deeply, deeply suspect. By comparison to other institutions some entries on this list (which does contain some very notable names, although many (understandably) from before the unified new college was founded) are very feeble indeed. I am thinking particularly of Anam, Ayass, Hanratty, Poppy, and Walker. Comments on this welcome. Badgerpatrol 09:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be an embarassment, but the reality is, in terms of post-merger alumni, that's what the college has. Dorange 01:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But are they notable per Wikipedia policies and guidelines? That is the question. In any case, we do not have to include every alum on this list, although they should all be in the category. These guys are supposed to be notable alumni- i.e. those that stand out. Including, for example, an author who has a maximum of one book published (and whose Wikipedia entry is, predictably, seemingly self-penned), a minor lecturer at a non-elite academic institution in Greenwich, and a sometime presenter on a student television station, is not mandated or required by Wikipedia policy. Badgerpatrol 09:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

12th Nov 15:53 edit
if you look at this edit I updated the Campus section to keep the article up to date regarding the building work on campus. Changing from opening to opened etc...Can someone tell me why this change was reverted. It is a legit change that needed to be made. I can't understand the reversion... Can someone change it back or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.157.243 (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anybody even read this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.157.243 (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:N2202774432 37334.jpeg
The image Image:N2202774432 37334.jpeg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:N2202774432 37334.jpeg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --01:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Notable students and notable staff edits
Firstly, I have undone the recent edits by Cj1340. I thought they were unnecessary, Roger wright and the rapper Example are both alumni of the college. Patricia Gaffney may not be an alumnus but it does state clearly that it is a list of people who have studied at the college, not necessarily graduated, this change was made to accommodate some people on the list who either did not graduate or are currently students. I believe this to be in keeping with most other university articles where non-graduates are often included in 'people' sections, perhaps the best thing to do would be to specify that they did not graduate in the list. As for Williamson, she is described as a 'university administrator' because of administrative positions she held at other institutions before becoming principle of Holloway, most notably as principle of St Mary's College, Durham.

Secondly, I am going to removing the titles of 'Professor' and 'Dr.' from the list of notable staff, mainly because some of them are not professors any more (many of them are dead!), also because some who are now professors or later became professors were not professors during their time at Holloway. There is the added problem that for of the former staff we don't know what position they actually held there, or at least I don't, which makes it look a bit messy when some people don't have any title before their name on the list. Does anyone object to this? Let me know. 86.144.83.121 (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC) That last post was me by the way, didn't realize I wasn't logged in. But yes I have deleted all the 'professor' and 'Dr.' bits and it looks a lot better, it tells you the job titles of all the ones we know are or were professors anyway. One more thing, I do think that the University of London Institute in paris should get a mention in this article, seeing as it is a remote college administered as a joint venture between Holloway and Queen Mary. Natterjack1 (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Egham or Englefield Green
There seems to be some dispute on Wikipedia as to where this university is based. Some pages say Egham, others Englefield Green. Which is it?? 81.132.253.173 (talk) 10:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Geographically, the college is essentially located right in between Egham and Englefield Green. However the official address of the college places it in Egham and not Englefield Green. Dorange (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Egham is the post town, and therefore appears on all "correct" official addresses for residences and businesses in Englefield Green. For electoral purposes, Royal Holloway's campus is in Englefield Green East ward. — mholland (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes but ward boundaries don't always follow the natural route, particularly if there's a large clump of voters (I assume all students in campus halls are registered by the college?) that can't be obviously divided and aiming for equal sized wards complicates matters.
 * Enfield is the town, Englefield Green a village around it. Everything I can recall from RHUL identifies its location as Enfield, which is the larger settlement. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you mean Egham, not Enfield. But yes, I'd agree the campus can't be said to be in Englefield Green just because students who live on campus are placed in the Englefield Green East electoral ward for local government elections, as electoral ward boundaries and names don't always follow town/village boundaries. The geographical location of the college doesn't obviously place it in either Egham or Englefield Green as it's essentially right on the boundary between the two places. But given that the offical campus address places it in Egham, I think it's best for Wikipedia to follow this. Dorange (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In response to the item below on notable students
Yes I object - hear's why: when I look at at list like this I expect to see people who hold a degree from the college (strictly LU by study at the college and all that that implies regarding the standard of study). That is to say I expect to see a list of alumni as defined in the College statutes. (I expect the same on othe university sites). If this is not a list of alumni it should say so. If you start to introduce others who may just have "studied" at RHC, the concept of alumni is diluted. The criteria for just anyone who studied at RHC are not clear: studed for a week, two weeks, or what exactly? Can it be checked? Being an alumnus is public domain. Studying on a short course is not. When does a short course attain the standard required of a degree? What is the point of a diluted list like this - it is worthless. If they are not alumni, say so, and put them in a separate list for what it is worth - nothing in my view.

Of course being an alumnus is just the start - these should be people with some obviously outstanding achievments behind them. As I look on the list in more detail the more worthless it becomes. To give some specific instances:

Williamson: If she was a Principal of St Mary's, say so, and the same for RHC. 'University Administrator' is not a position; it could be anything and does not do her justice.

Wright: has no cross reference and the terms 'controller' and 'director' mean nothing - they are internal BBC positions. He may be a Company Director - but not at the BBC. What great things has he done? None stated here.

Tara Dean: does being a solicitor qualify for this list? The cross referenced detail is laughable.

Patricia Gaffney: what did she study here, for how long, what department, what effect did it have on her work? We don't know! It really should not be here

It looks like there are plenty more examples but I do not wish to get too personal. Frankly many of these entries and the hilarious cross references look very much like attempts at promotion rather than record special achievements. They should not be here at all.Cj1340 Cj1340 (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC) 22:33 (GMT) 2008-12-28

Ok, I understand your objections but let me explain my position. First of all, it does say that it is not a list of alumni quite clearly at the top of the list. It is a list of people to who have spent time as students of the college, even if some of them did not graduate, they all studied at the college. All of them are either referenced or there is information in their individual articles relating to their connection with the college, providing references for this article for each individual included in the list is not something I have time to do and I don't know of any university alumnus list that has that. The list is not trying to make any judgment on how much the course the person took is 'worth', it is merely trying to provide a greater amount of relevant information to the article. Similarly, the notability of some of the alumni is not something that I wish to bring in to question, if they have wikipedia articles that have not been removed by anyone then we can make a tentative judgment that they meet the general notability guidelines, if you disagree with the idea that any of these people should be included in this encyclopedia then challenge the existence of their articles, but as long as those articles exist then including them in this list only adds to the relevant information available. Removing those that you have suggested only decreases the amount of information that is available in the article, doing that because you personally feel that those people are not notable is not a good enough reason, I believe that if they are notable enough on be on wikipedia then it can only improve the article to have them here. I reiterate, it not about making the college look good or bad, some of these people are not the sort of people an academic institution might be proud of producing such as the wresting manger or glamour model, but including them provides more information about the college nonetheless.

Williamson: She was principle of St Mary's, I will work on getting a good reference seeing as it is an issue. No, it is not a position but neither are most things people are listed as on most encyclopedic lists, such as 'educator', 'marine biologist', or whatever, what matters is that it gives a better idea of here career and influence than simply putting her down as the principle of this one college.

Wright: I agree that listing someone by their current occupation is problematic, if you have a better idea about how he should be defined please make the change. Just a note but someone I know who is entirely unconnected with the college is in the process of coming up with an article for him, you can challenge his notoriety by calling for its deletion when that is done, obviously if he is removed then I would happy to remove him from this list as being un-noteworthy.

Dean: The solicitor bit is just a bit of extra info about the person, you could argue it is slightly irrelevant due to the fact that the main thing that makes her notable is her film production. It's a bit like pointing out that Harry Hill is a doctor as well as a comedian I know, if you really think I should remove it I will.

Gaffney: To be honest I don't know the answers to any of those questions, she does fit the criteria for inclusion set out at the top of the list, again I feel that removing her only decreases the amount of information that this article provides to the reader.

Again, I would like to point out that I am trying to avoid POV, you yourself say that you think some of these articles are laughable, many would disagree but it just proves the point that their inclusion is not designed to improve the image of the college, but to improve the quality of the article by providing as much relevant information as possible. If someone has studied at the college I think it is fair to say that it is relevant to this article, how much their experience at the college influenced their future work is not us to guess at, how much was Darwin influenced by his time at Edinburgh or Cambridge? Probably not very much, but we would include him nonetheless. Like I say, detailed referencing is not something I feel that I could achieve on my own and to be honest it really is not the norm on these kind of lists, you often have to rely on the information provided in the linked article, imposing strict standards of referencing on this list would be moving away from the accepted norm of simple university alumni lists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.83.121 (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The list of "notable" alumni gets more laughable by the day. Suggest that at the very least it is split into Notable and Non-notable and in the latter include solictors, teachers, models, rap artists, pop artists, news readers, organists, piano players and the like. It is certainly becoming the laughing stock of what's left of London University.Cj1340 (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger edits
I have edited some sections of the 'Merger of Royal Holloway College and Bedford College (1985) and failed mergers' section. 'Failed mergers' is an unnecessary and misleading title, while the claim that Royal Holloway 'entered into unsuccessful merger and collaborative discussions with Imperial College London' is unfounded. SiDoyley (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Stunning
Words like "stunning" strike me as an exaggeration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.178.115 (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Classics dept
There could be scope to mention the pending cutbacks and redundancies in Classics. See Timesonline article. Any opinions on whether this fails WP:NOTNEWS? Fæ (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Royal Holloway, University of London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723064037/http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_946.pdf to http://multimedia.olympic.org/pdf/en_report_946.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100914105055/http://www.shl.lon.ac.uk/specialcollections/archives/studentrecords.shtml to http://www.senatehouselibrary.ac.uk/our-collections/historic-collections/archives-manuscripts/university-of-london-student-records-1836-1931/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Can't view last paragraph
I cannot view the last paragraph of the introduction:

''Considered one of the top universities in the UK, both in international reputation and research,[4] Royal Holloway was ranked 13th in the UK, 22nd in Europe, and 88th in the world by the Times Higher Education World University Rankings[5] for 2010-2011. It is particularly strong in the arts and humanities[6] and admission into popular courses such as English, Creative Writing, Psychology and Music are among the most competitive in the country with a highly selective 9:1 applicants to place ratio.[7][8][9][10] Throughout its recent history, Royal Holloway has also maintained strong links and exchange programmes with leading institutions in the USA and Canada most notably Yale University and the University of Toronto.[11]''

when I click on just Royal Holloway. However, this paragraph just magically appears when I click Royal Holloway, University of London. Can anyone please clear up this confusion? :|

- annonymous 08:11, 4 June 2012‎


 * The page text has changed a lot since then, and maybe a markup issue was resolved. Can't see any problem at the moment. Were you viewing the mobile version o the site? Do you see the same problem on any other articles? -- Harry Wood (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)