Talk:Woxbridge

It is highly refutable that the article belongs in the categories:English culture | Academic culture | Terminology of the University of Oxford

In fact, the article should probably not exist at all, as the page was only created yesterday, despite claims to the term being in circulation for a number of years. The term seems to only refer to the 'Woxbridge' Business Conference (see page references), which seems to indicate the term is merely the name of the Conference, rather than a set phrase in its own right.

The article has probably only been created by a Warwick student to try and big up the university (particularly by citing it as the third biggest university when varied sources suggest different things), or to send to his friends as an 'inside joke', or as a wind-up to students of Oxford and Cambridge (it seems to have generated much editing) and it is of little use to the general public given that the term is not even commonly used. The article is sloppy and most of its page's content is irrelevant detail to the term itself. And if the page continues it will serve no purpose as a page other than to be spammed by unsubstantiated and/or irrelevant opinion by both defenders and critics of the term/article.

It might be worth considering having an article for the Woxbridge Business Conference, as that is indeed everything the article is basing itself on. But I suggest this particular page be recommended for removal.

K93 (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Rationale
This article does assert its notability and has been nominated for speedy deletion by someone who appears to hold a grudge about the university of Warwick and it's recent gain in prestige (eg various international cities bidding to get a Warwick campus for their own country where the other two didn't) Also, this does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. In addition to this, User:David Biddulph who nominated this article, is a Cambridge alumnus and has been known to take ownership of such articles and assume bad faith. See his talk page history (he deletes any negative comments) UKWikiGuy (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The speedy nomination was not by me, but by ; I merely restored the tag when it was accidentally deleted.  It was also not me who added the PROD tag;  that was .  I am proud to be a Cambridge alumnus, and you are equally entitled to be proud of your alma mater.  I congratulate Warwick on its rise to 8th/ 3rd/ 8th/ 8th in the various tables in Rankings of universities in the United Kingdom;  Warwick currently doesn't appear in the table in Academic Ranking of World Universities, Times Higher Education World University Rankings, or QS World University Rankings, but hopefully at some stage in the future it will do so.  The Wikipedia community will draw its own conclusions on the notability of the term Woxbridge outside Warwick or outside the context of the conference. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't Be A Dick. It's a very important point of netiquette. And don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about. Anyway, I happen to be a Warwick student, and agree that it should be speedily deleted. Clearly created to try to perpetuate a divide, with Warwick on the perceived "winning" side. Triangl (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur with the AFD, I also happen to be a Warwick student, and it's not a term I've ever heard used. Cjeam (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Explanation
I suggest the article be allowed to remain as long as it remains honest and relevant. This will necessarily contain my recent (tragically rolled back) revision "The term gained wider useage on April 25th 2011, when, following an article in the Warwick Boar[6], a desperate bunch of Oxfudge rejects witnessing the onset of revision psychosis started a facebook group promoting its use amongst their cretinous associates[7]." I believe this would be an outcome we can all live with, please let me know your thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.138.179 (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * As previously remarked there may be a case for an article on the conference, but there is no evidence whatsoever of wider use, and all this speculation should be deleted. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Indented line

Thoughts to the above comments: there is no evidence whatsoever of wider use except for an article in the student newspaper, which looks to have been written slightly tongue-in-cheek, and the above-mentioned facebook group, again leading to the conclusion it is likely not a known phrase, rather an inside-joke and/or intra-university wind-up and as such does not really belong on wikipedia. Comments, including an accurate and relevant reference, have been removed by non-registered users in order to keep the article looking favourably upon the university, and which do not contribute to the perpetuation of the phrase which was only actually created yesterday. This casts serious doubt over the creators' impartiality. It reads as a 'fan page' for the university by creating a wikipedia article(which anyone can do) about a term likening them with Oxford and Cambridge which nobody uses except as the name of the Business Conference between the two schools.

K93 (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

It is a word that is gathering usage, be it amongst the group who it concerns. I do not think this article should be deleted, though further references should be included. This link might help http://theboar.org/comment/2010/jun/23/woxbridge-tops-tables/ George5210 (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The only reason the word is 'gathering usage' is because of this ridiculous debate. Oxbridge exists as a term because of the similar nature of those two institutions, in that they have a long history and have played a role in society for centuries, in exactly the way Warwick hasn't. Having a good academic reputation in today's world, which seems to be the justification for modifying the term to include Warwick in light of the recent subjective assessment by one newspaper, is only one facet of what the term 'Oxbridge' implies. I'm a Warwick final year, and I have NEVER heard this term used or seen it written in any context other than the recent article, the resulting facebook group and this article. "Oh yeah, John's hoping to get into Woxbridge." Try saying that. It sounds absurd, because it's not a term ever genuinely used by anyone. Might as well say Swanshampchester deserves recognition as a radical new term. Warwick can excel on it's own terms without trying to present it as equivalent to something it isn't. This is not a word. Kill it. 137.205.138.179 (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Screw it, lets get rid of this page
This page is just being trolled by Oxford and Cambridge students in order to ruin the reputation of the university of Warwick. As the page creator, I was trying to contribute a useful article in good faith but instead it has just been subjected to constant vandalism. I am leaving Wikipedia forever now as I have no confidence in the editing process. This page will now be nominated for speedy deletion to end this once and for all UKWikiGuy (talk) 19:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge to Oxbridge
After deleting inappropriate sources and puffery there's little or nothing left, and I suggest just merging to Oxbridge. There's already a reasonable sentence there, similar to the sentences for Doxbridge and Loxbridge, and this is probably the most this concept merits. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No, speedy delete. Your university made this into an edit war and you won. I speak on behalf of the entire Warwick student body when I say they can't be bothered to have anything to do with this childishness UKWikiGuy (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

While I don't share your analysis I have no objection to this proposal. Alternatively a redirect to Oxbridge would be sensible, on the model of Doxbridge. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems rich that the creator of this page, who has most probably made the article as a wind-up/inside-joke to his mates, about a term that doesn't actually exist and which wiki's own editors have cut considerably, should compain about a page being trolled. This when it was the same fellow above, speaking apparently on behalf of the entire student body (though I suspect not!), who started the wind-up in the first place. It appears in light of his petulent comments on here he can dish out the banter (a popular 'Wozzer lad' word) but can't hack it in return. It is not just being trolled by Oxbridge students as many Warwick students also doubt its substance. I am a Warwick alumnus, with friends still at the university, I have never heard the term used and I find the whole page farcical, as have other Warwick students testified on here. It has been exposed as unsubstantial, and now the creator is crying about it. The page really should just be deleted, with any relevant details as to the Woxbridge conference added to another article where applicable. 137.205.137.207 (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I hate to burst your bubble, but Wikipedia does not have a selected set of editors. Anyone may edit Wikipedia. Also, if you are an alumnus why are you editing from your study bedroom on resnet - you are a fresher? Furthermore, "banter" is not a word used by many Warwick students except ironically. You are clearly not in on that joke UKWikiGuy (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Dang, you got me! you must be very proud of yourself! you can be sarcastic if you want - as it happens I do know that anyone can edit wikipedia (funny that!), I'm sure any non-pedantic/childish reader might have known I meant the more experienced/trustworthy users. As for the 'banter' issue, it's not exactly appropriate for this discussion but I will satisfy your jibes nonetheless - it's not used ironically by that many people. even if people say they are they're still the type of person others make fun of for using it. The 'Warwick banter' types who so claim to use it ironically are generally those exact ones that the Gap Yah video was making fun of, talk about not being in on the joke! Anyway back to topic, your replies and comments here have offered little to convince of the page's genuineness and reliability. If you don't have anything constructive to contribute to that, then don't say anything at all. This page is useless to everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.137.207 (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I see the speedy delete has been declined so the redirect seems the answer. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Now done. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Swanshampchester
Swanshampchester is a portmanteau of the universities of Swansea, Southampton and Manchester. The term can be used as a noun or an adjective describing the institutions and their students. It is often used with implications of greater social ability and a well rounded lifestyle. Contrast this to the 'WoxLoxDoxbridge' students, whose educational experience leaves only the options of entering politics, the more abstract levels of management devoid of practical aptitude or human interaction, or contributing to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.138.179 (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)