This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
This article is within the scope of the University of Cambridge WikiProject, an attempt to improve articles relating to the University of Cambridge, and to standardize and extend the coverage of the University in the encyclopedia. If you would like to participate, you can help us by editing the article attached to this notice, or you could visit the project page, where you can join the project, learn more about it, see what needs to be done, or contribute to the discussion.University of CambridgeWikipedia:WikiProject University of CambridgeTemplate:WikiProject University of CambridgeUniversity of Cambridge
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science
We only include people notable enough to have WP articles. Full professors who do not currently have articles could probably justify them by the standards in WP:PROF, but they may not be added until the articles have been accepted here. DGG ( talk ) 13:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move 4 January 2019
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Certainly not, it is not just for disambiguation's sake, but also it would put this department above others (is this suddenly THE department?), and would be out of line compared to other university department articles, both inside and outside of the University of Cambridge (against WP:CONSISTENCY, compare even the similarly long Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic, University of Cambridge). Also, its unclear which department this would be referring to; if the department at Tsinghua were to put information about their page on an article of that name, it wouldn't necessarily be out of line, the title not being specific (I know that last point is a little iffy, given the name is referring to the specific department, but my previous points do stand) Shadowssettle(talk)20:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Cavendish Laboratory is named, so is not really comparable. Other examples without names are specific institutes, rather than departments, where confusion is less likely. For example, the Institute for Manufacturing is quite identifiable, whereas a general "Department of xyz" is much more surprising without a institution name Shadowssettle(talk)20:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who knows the department/institute would recognize it, it isn't the purpose of titles to convoy information other than the subject's name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's just generally not how things are done on Wikipedia. Institutes and centres are generally viewed as being more autonomous, and so are not generally put with the name, but I think you'll find it almost universal that departments are named with their university. WP:CONSISTENCY is relevant, even now, as why is this one suddenly different? Should we move Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic, University of Cambridge, just because it's also unique and long? That's not a point to bring up here, but something much more general across Wikipedia's university coverage. Also, there's no point in moving to a page it is likely have to move from later, which just puts this argument further along the line again. I don't know why this is a point of contention even, the suggested move is a sensible name for the article. Shadowssettle(talk)15:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware per WP:PRECISE WP convention is that we do tend to use just the name even if a qualifier is often added in speech etc. It seems appropriate to have this one disambiguated (due to the Tarsadia one) but Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic doesn't appear to need it. Its website doesn't even include "University of Cambridge" in the title, not even as a qualifier. Many albums and films may be said to be unrecognizable without an "(Album)" or "(film)" qualifier but those that don't need it don't have it. The only exceptions I can think of are Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK Parliament constituencies), Wikipedia:Naming conventions (U.S. state and territory highways) and WP:UKPLACE. There doesn't appear to be such a guideline for university departments. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
You haven't said what you think is wrong with the coordinates in the article, and they appear to be correct. If you still think that there is an error, you'll need to supply a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
