Notable academics

I made some minor edits to the list, specifically, clarifying the academic subject descriptors. But the list is a bit odd - includes some who were associated with the OU but who seem to have been included because they are notable for other reasons (Gordon Brown) and some who don't have any publicly recorded association or academic role (Dimitra Fima? Nigel Warburton - association seems to be an OU PhD?). Does the list need more clarity of purpose? Nigel Cross (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More than a month later no responses, so I propose some editing to remove those who are notable for other reasons (e.g. politicians, authors) but not for their academic careers. Nigel Cross (talk) 10:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The

I was prompted to open this discussion thread by the recent edits of ZeroAlpha87 at Chris Whitty, here and here. Looking at the "Alma mater" in the info boxes for those people listed at Category:Alumni of the Open University, there seems to be a rather random split between those which use Open University (as per the current title here) and those which use The Open University (as per the opening line here). Which is correct? Should this article be moved to The Open University? Do we need a WP:RM to do so? I see this subject was very briefly raised, in the thread at the top of this page, in 2018. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a look back in the archives, this is a perennial and sometimes "vigorous" debate. So yes, it would certainly need a formal RM.
FWIW, the formal name of the institution, per its charter, is "The Open University" (1    There shall be and is hereby constituted and founded a University with the name and style of "The Open University".) --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is in fact an official guideline that appears to cover this point. See WP:THE, especially under the sub-head, "Names of groups, sports teams and companies". On that basis, it would seem to be correct to include the "The". Mike Marchmont (talk) 11:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we also have The Times and The New York Times (although also just Daily Mail and Daily Mirror). The logo for The Open University, which appears in the infobox, is also a bit of a giveaway? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC) p.s. I looked at List of universities in the United Kingdom and this would be the only one beginning with "The"? But not sure that matters.[reply]
Regarding The Times, this is specifically covered in Hart's Rules: Names of periodicals: apparent inconsistency is often caused by the prefix The ... As a rule, print the definite article in Roman lower case, as the Daily Telegraph, the Daily Express. The Times and The Economist are exceptions, as those publications prefer to have it so. This is not completely relevant to The Open University, but is worth noting. Mike Marchmont (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or even The Daily Telegraph? lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Within the article 'List of universities in the United Kingdom', there is also 'University of Manchester', despite its, too, having 'The' in its logo. I tried to request a move, but it would not let me. There might well be others, some of which are harder to determine without visiting the institutions' websites to see how they style themselves. I studied at the University of Birmingham, which, until the year before I enrolled, had been 'The University of Birmingham'; in other words, some organisations do purposefully remove 'The' from their official names, but it looks as though The Open University and The University of Manchester have not (so far). ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 13:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those details. I had no idea. Maybe there are others? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, there may also be a case for moving to The University of Manchester, although their logo is quite a fancy one. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In speech, I have never heard anyone say "graduated from Open University", it is invariably "graduated from The Open University". Of course one can't tell the capitalisation from speech but the "the" is always there. Perhaps it is because Open is not a geographical descriptor. I think it should have "The" added. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Philafrenzy is correct, but it does not get us very far. People would also say "graduated from the University of Oxford", and our article is entitled University of Oxford. And people would say "has an Open University degree". No one would say "has a the Open University degree". As a slightly relevant aside, Ohio State University appears to want to be called "The Ohio State University", yet so renaming our article has not happened, per Talk:Ohio State University/Archive 1. Edwardx (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but as a native English speaker on seeing the article it just strikes me as wrong without the The. I suspect you agree. That is a good test. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. For what it's worth, their current radio advertising ends with the slogan or strapline "The Open University: The future's open". Philafrenzy (talk) 12:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't have a strong view either way on this. Edwardx (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now listed at WP:RM. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 December 2023

Open University → The Open University – this is what it calls itself Martinevans123 (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you the nominator? Nominators do not ordinarily feel the need to express support for their own proposals. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you prefer me to remove this section or strike it through? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck through. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought I had to do that, as it was my edit? If you think that comment has, or will, unduly influence the outcome of this request, perhaps you'd like me to scrap this one and start afresh? But I guess we'd have to ask all the other contributors first? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to do what you want, but at this point, probably no one cares much and no one will be unduly influenced or confused. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for that inspiring vote of confidence in our wonderful processes. But I'd be surprised if absolutely no one here cares. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably well aware that Wikipedia policies and guidelines disagree with that opinion. (I'm not saying I oppose the move; I'm just saying that this particular rationale is not appropriate – at least not without a major change of Wikipedia policies.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I reject your vaguewave attempt at procedural rules to eliminate an argument. Note, as just mentioned below, I mean to distinguish existing proper names from branding. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Categories