Talk:Doxbridge

Stub

IS this a stub? Certainly it's short, but is there actually more that needs to be said on the topic? TSP 30 June 2005 08:30 (UTC)

I agree, this is not a stub. I therefore removed the stub status.

VfD

For the 1 July 2005 Vote for deletion resulting in merge to Oxbridge, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Doxbridge. -- Jonel | Speak 03:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the voting page it is quite clear that merge did not win (3 votes), but rather delete with 6 votes... Gangeska

"Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith."

As a number of the delete votes were made by accounts which are very new (less than 10 edits by the time of their vote), I discounted them as the VfD page noted can be done. The comments made by those editors were heavily biased against Durham, stretching the assumption that they were made by good faith editors familiar with Wikipedia policies. Discussion also convinced me that the term is in use outside of Wikipedia. Since 6 to 3 is already borderline as to whether consensus to delete has been obtained, discounting new user votes combined with the commentary makes this a very easy decision for me to say that merge was the result of the VfD.

I can assure you that most peoplle in oxbridge will go through three years at their university without every coming over this term.

Indeed; as was said during the vote by even those wanting to keep the definition, it is not a very common term. However, Google hits show that it does exist, and is in use. As Wikipedia policies say, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so as long as a subject is real there is no reason for it not to be mentioned even if it is very obscure. TSP 19:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the first place I saw it used was in wikipedia, and I have studied at cambridge for two years. It is quite clear to most people here that the term is simply something used by people at durham to feel closer to exbridge.

It has quite clearly been shown that that is not the case; Google hits show more web pages using the term in both Oxford and Cambridge than in Durham. This is simply not a very common term; but it is not the case that it is some wile by members of the University of Durham; it is a phrase in uncommon use in all three universities. TSP 19:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly not something that one should relevantly mention in the oxbridge article. As it stood at the time of the merge, the oxbridge article was about half and half, which I see a bit like writing about the G8 countries, and spending half the article talking about how Iceland is also a country.

Feel free to expand other sections of the Oxbridge article to compensate; and indeed to condense this section, though as the word 'Doxbridge' is used elsewhere in Wikipedia and now redirects to 'Oxbridge' it would be inappropriate to remove the reference entirely (it would also, by the way, be inappropriate under Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View policy to edit the article to speak of the term 'Doxbridge' in scathing terms). TSP 19:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, fairly assessing the vote the way you claim it should be assessed, it is clear that the whole vote should be declared void,

Wikipedia has a bias towards inclusion; so pages are only deleted when there is clear concensus to delete. This is usually considered to be something like a 2/3rds majority of delete against all other options, among experienced editors voting. This was plainly not acheived. I don't think there was anything invalid in the vote, unless you know otherwise. TSP 19:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

and if anything is to be done, a new vote should be helf on the oxbridge page, as that is the one people read, and as the change to that page is what will alter what people will see.

Editing a Wikipedia page does not require a vote. TSP 19:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, please do not edit the VfD subpage again. Any discussion over the result should occur here. -- Jonel | Speak 03:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doxbridge = Doxbridge Tournament

The term "Doxbridge" is most commonly used to the sports tournament. It runs no deeper. Look at the 230 or so google hits - the vast majority refer to the sports tournament. The other tiny minority mostly discuss the term "doxbridge" rather than use it as if it were an accepted term that describes some sort of affiliation between the three universities other than through the sports tournament. Voting on whether to delete the article, merge it etc is stupid as only 9 people or so vote in it - and so the ultimate decision depends on how many Durham or Oxbridge students (present or past) vote. Rather, it is clear that "Doxbridge" only refers to the sports tournament. Thus, I have linked "Doxbridge" to a stub on the tournament that I created. This avoids confusion for those using the term "Doxbridge" in the common sense (i.e. as refering to the tournament) - such as the link to "Doxbridge" (i.e. the tournament) in the Durham University article. Logica 14:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See below.

GFDL compliancy

This article needs to stay redirected to Oxbridge per the terms of the GFDL. Hiding Talk 12:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of this page?

This page previously failed a VFD - see above - and was merged into Oxbridge. Is there any particular justification for its recreation, or should it just be re-merged? TSP (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It has been 14-years since 2005. While back then evidence was likely lacking for its use, the term has seen numerous mentions on the internet since.

Topic of this article

The topic of this article, as defined in the lead, is the portmanteau word "Doxbridge". Recent edits by an anonymous editor have had the effect of introducing material that is a direct comparison of the three universities rather than about the term Doxbridge. This has the effect of changing the topic of the article from being about the word itself into a being about a group of universities. The anonymous editor has indeed stated explicitly in their edit summaries that they believe this is an article about a group of universities. Firstly, I think it needs to be recognised that this is a change of the topic of the page that needs to be discussed before being implemented. Secondly, I do not believe that the decision that Doxbridge is a group of universities is one that should, at this time, be made in Wikipedia's editorial voice. While it is indisputable that the word itself exists, and is thus a valid topic, the coverage of its use to refer seriously to a group of universities would not (at least currently) be substantial enough to justify an article (and seems to be confined to the legal world). Thirdly, this has the appearance of WP:ADVOCACY: all of the edits made from the IP address of the anonymous editor have either been to alter this article in a manner that moves it towards being about a group of universities or to insert links to this article in the "see also" section of articles on university groups. I invite others' thoughts on this matter. Robminchin (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above, there should be no change of topic. Endymion.12 (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know this article even existed. To be honest it should probably just be replaced with a redirect to Oxbridge#Related terms which contains the few genuinely important bits. Doxbridge as a group of universities is largely a fiction in the mind of various Durham students and alumni. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I always assumed it was used ironically. Endymion.12 (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I wouldn't object to merging this article as suggested above. There is little here worth salvaging, and the referencing is poor (a lot of references to The Tab etc). Endymion.12 (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I would agree that Doxbridge as a group of universities is a fiction in the minds of some Durham students and alumni (although noting that the strongest opposition in the references discussing this seems to also come from Durham students and alumni), I feel that there is substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources, with multiple articles discussing the term in multiple sources, it has been debated at the Cambridge Union, and a quick Google News search shows usage in the Telegraph, Guardian and Independent (back in 2015 when this was a printed paper). To my mind, this is sufficient to establish notability as a term, so I would oppose merger.

As a group of universities it is, as I said before, very far from being generally recognised (I think the only source that would begin to support this is the mention in the Chambers Student report referenced in the article, but that is nothing like sufficient). It seems clear that there is no support for changing the topic of this article to be about Doxbridge as a group of universities. Robminchin (talk) 15:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]