Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Colleges of the UK)

I'm extremely unconvinced by these:

• There's no reason for an article on, say, a Durham college to be at Foo College, Durham if no other Foo College exists.
• The suggested format simply doesn't work for many of the London colleges. Are you proposing moving King's College London to King's College, London, Imperial College London to Imperial College, London and so on? The forms without the comma are the names as used by the institution. What do you propose doing in the case of Queen Mary, University of London?

All in all this looks to me like unnecessary instruction creep which, if implemented, would lead to some extremely clunky and inappropriate article naming. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 12:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've got to concurr with the above, I think following the standard naming practices of the universities in question (ie, using the most common name) is preferable to adopting a uniform standard that may be quite significantly divorced from the name by which the college in question is usually known. --Daduzi ^talk 04:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above and also think naming a ficticious college Jordan College, Oxford implies that it actually exists and really is in Oxford in a way that Jordan College or (if necessary) Jordan College (His Dark Materials) does not. --Cherry blossom tree 09:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not sure there actually needs to be a policy, I'm also not sure that we actually should be using, for example, King's College London instead of King's College, London. The form without the comma is a relatively new gimmick (and only a gimmick) by the institutions concerned, and I would suggest that the common name (and in most or all cases also the official name, as in QMW's case) is still the one with the comma, which makes far more sense in the English language. As an alumnus of KCL, I would always write it with the comma.

Should we be renaming articles as the institutions concerned change their names as marketing gimmicks? For instance, according to its internal literature, the University of Warwick, where I work, should be referred to commonly as "Warwick" and that's what's now on its letterheads. But I would doubt that anyone would suggest changing the name of the article to Warwick (university). -- Necrothesp 17:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As another King's College London alumnus I would always write the name, well, like I just did. Shrug. In any case, what the university calls itself is a good indicator as to what the most common name is (which as far as I'm aware is the case with King's), but if the two diverge (as in the case of Warwick) then the common name should take precedent. --Daduzi ^talk 19:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Name of the naming conventions...

... should surely be Naming conventions (Colleges of UK Universities). It certainly wouldn't apply to East Devon College of Further Education where I studied for my A levels, yet that is a college. JulesH 07:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)