Talk:Imperial College London/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Well Written Main Article

The introduction is great.

The main article could use your help editing, especially if you are articulate. Since Imperial is mainly a technical engineering/science university, please be mindful of your strengths and weaknesses in written composition. This is especially relevant if English is your second language. Please write with proper grammar.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.26.82 (talk) 10:23, 24 May 2015

Male:Female Ratio

The Imperial College Factsheet gives the ratio as 63.2:36.8. Would a better approximation be 6½:3½, or 13:7? This is also the value the Daily Mail uses in its table, 64:36. M Blissett 12:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When quoting ratios it is always done with integers, so 13:7 (which is *way* better than the 13:1 of my day) --Vamp:Willow 14:31, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It would make sense to write this as: Imperial's student population is composed of more men then woman, with 63 percent of students male and 37 percent of students female. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.26.82 (talk) 10:23, 24 May 2015

Awesome

I found it awesome that both of Prince Harry and Kate's babies were born at Imperial's hospital at Saint Mary's, should the article mention that? I thought it would be rather fascinating and enlightening, especially as an outsider I never knew this before reading it in the newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.26.82 (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2015

Bars

something about the bars on campus (apparently ICU does something other than fund clubs and societies), including the late southside bar perhaps?

Great idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.35.162 (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2015‎

Suggested additions and edits from Imperial

We work in the Communications and Public Affairs Division at Imperial College London. We have some suggestions for improving Imperial’s Wikipedia page, but thought we’d post them here rather than editing, respecting the expertise of existing editors and the potential conflict of interest for anyone employed by the College in updating the article about Imperial.

We hope these suggestions help. We’d be very happy to try to help find additional sources.

• Sidebox: The ‘Rector’ is listed as Alice Gast. Imperial has reformed its leadership structure so the ‘Rector’ is now known as ‘President’ http://www.imperial.ac.uk/about/leadership-and-strategy/president/.

• The College also has a Provost, Professor James Stirling. It may be worth mentioning him, following the practice of Wikipedia pages at other universities with a President and Provost leadership model, such as MIT. http://www.imperial.ac.uk/about/leadership-and-strategy/provost/

• Many of the financial figures throughout the page, e.g. on the College’s endowment and research income, are now out of date. The latest annual report may help http://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/administration-and-support-services/finance/public/Annual-Report-2014-15.pdf.

• City and Guilds College. It may be worth adding that in 2013 Imperial renamed its major mechanical engineering building as the City and Guilds Building http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_19-9-2013-17-17-24.

• Under the ‘2010 to Present’ section it might be worth adding more about the Dyson School of Design Engineering, a major new addition to the College. The entry currently also indicates only one of the School’s courses are on offer. More background on the School, its background, its courses and its location can be found here: http://www.imperial.ac.uk/design-engineering/ and here: http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_22-3-2015-23-9-54

• The ‘White City Campus’ section could note that 600 students (http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_23-11-2012-17-0-46) and several start ups and spinouts are already hosted on this site. The Translation & Innovation Hub is scheduled to open in summer 2016: http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_28-1-2016-14-35-44

• Under ‘Accusations of Ill-treatment of Staff’ the inquest into Professor Grimm’s death has concluded. The review into policies, procedures and support available to staff also concluded in March 2015, accepting all recommendations. As an action from this the College also reviewed its approach to performance metrics. This concluded in December 2015 and its recommendations were accepted in full: https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/communications/Public/AcademicPerformancemetricseportDec15.pdf?Mobile=1&Source=%2Fcommunications%2F_layouts%2Fmobile%2Fdispform.aspx%3FList%3D13d0d3c5-98bb-4faa-a161-45a4985b71f9%26View%3D4efc9774-cf51-40f2-9a51-92ba9db50670%26ID%3D121%26CurrentPage%3D1

• Under “Student Housing” Woodward is currently not listed among the student halls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imperial Communications and Public Affairs Division (talk • contribs) 12:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Please edit it at least once. This page has never been fully edited, and needs to be improved. UC Berkeley has a university appointed editor, refer to their talk page. It should be noted that many Americans do not know what Imperial College is, or that it is a top 10 university. Something needs to be updated about this in the introduction.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6003:5900:B81F:C6D6:1F0A:9C62 (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Please upload some pictures too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6003:5900:B81F:C6D6:1F0A:9C62 (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Imperial College London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100822193641/http://www.arwu.org:80/FieldENG2010.jsp to http://www.arwu.org/FieldENG2010.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Major contributions by IP editors

An IP editor has been heavily involved in this article over the past year. Your contributions are welcome, but some points I've noticed.

• Sometimes you have a tenancy to simplify the language used and this can cause grammar issues.
• Yes, we do need to state this institution is in London, I know its common sense but this is the same format we have for other London institutions as well. Check those pages as well if you aren't sure.
• Please leave citation needed tags for sections where there are no citations. We need to make sure statements are reliable, someone can come along and find a citation.

Overall, thank you for editing, I hope you take my comments in good spirit. If we keep working at it then this could become a good article. Aloneinthewild (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Thank you, points taken.

1. Keep in mind there are many IP editors, so this feedback only represents one IP editor's thoughts.
2. Please use simple language as it emphasizes the important points.
3. London, UK should be kept in the first sentence.
4. citation needed tags left inside the article

Image addition selections: I can tell you do not like the picture of the natural history museum as you removed it twice. Is there another high quality picture to use instead? You added 3 images, one was of an image already on the page, "St Mary's Hospital." It was a high quality image so I kept your image and instead replaced the existing "St. Mary's Hospital" image. You inserted two other images, one was of "Charing Cross Hospital." I found 3 images of hospitals on Imperial College's page to be quite boring. Imperial is more than hospitals. Another image was added of Wye College, which is lower quality then the other images on the page. It also seems like wye college is more of a side point as it no longer is an active part of imperial. Is there another high quality image to put in its place instead of the natural history museum that would enhance reader interest? Would a picture of the great albert hall where Imperial holds graduation ceremonies be more interesting?

I am not the only one making spelling and "grammatical" errors. (ex: tenancy) ;) Thank you for your points and editing too!

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.35.162 (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2016‎ (UTC)

You must not change the comments of the previous editor, see WP:TPO, so I have reverted your change. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I "did not" change any of the discussion of the previous editor, no need to revert my change back. I simply added #'s next to his points so I could discuss his points by #, I see that was reverted back. I also changed the title to note that there are a lot of ip editors revising this page, not only one. There is no need for the cited wiki page, as it seems ridiculous, I did not violate anything. I wonder if there is bias against IP address people. :/

I re-added the S to IP editors so report me to wikipedia then for violations that are incorrectly being cited, seems like a proper edit to me. I will revert you back also if I am reverted again for no reason.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6003:5900:6CAA:D1A6:BD1E:804D (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I think David was just informing you of this guideline. I understand I was probably wrong and there are multiple Ip's active. Let's get back to the point and talk about the article. I think we need to work on the image choices, the national history museum really doesn't fit here as it is a separate institution and has no relation to imperials history. Royal Albert hall might be a good choice if we have a caption that says this is where graduations take place. Probably too many hospital images are not necessary. The Wye college image isn't too poor, it's definitely part of the history even if imperial closed it. We should try and have images that represent the paragraph they are next to. I think I've tackled most of the citation needed now. Aloneinthewild (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah ok, you are right. I was not sure why all my revisions were reverted back. I had taken that negatively as I am sure many users do as well. Yes, lets focus on the article. I agree with you on your suggestions. That makes sense about the natural history museum not being the best image choice there. It was also a good idea about the royal albert hall caption. There are plenty of images inside the royal albert hall of students graduations also, which could be more Imperial specific. Thanks for adding additional citations. You are welcome to choose a picture of the royal albert hall if you want or I can as well. I also think it is ideal to try and have images next to the paragraph they are about. It may be best to also find photos that enhance our student interest in the institution. For example, the image of st mary's hospital you inserted in my opinion was an excellent image as it was very high quality and encouraged our student interest and web page engagement. It was done in a neutral tone. Imperial has a long history, such that there may be many images to choose from. There also may be pictures of the royal family and Imperial that might be interesting too. Just my thoughts. Thanks for your hard work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6003:5900:B88C:6B:B7AF:5896 (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

There are still many defining points in Imperial's history that have yet to be written about. This may impact picture choices for you both. These important developments in Imperial's history are on Imperial's website. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/about/history/college-developments/ & https://www.imperial.ac.uk/about/history/past-people/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.198.42.164 (talk) 23:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Placement in Museum Row and the Rich Cultural Area

There is a very rich cultural experience at Imperial being located next to Museum Row, as well as Kensington Palace and Gardens. It is why I chose to come to the school. I think this could be more reflected through pictures and in the article a bit more. I think it is what makes the school as the school is a part of its surrounding context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.144.86 (talk) 10:15, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Imperial College London is virtually unknown in the United States

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnAmerican/comments/3mlsvc/how_prestigious_are_oxford_university_and/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.35.162 (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

This seems like a problem for Imperial marketing and not wikipedia editors. (Unless the comment is an Imperial grad who wants a job in the US) Aloneinthewild (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the second point is very relevant. This issue is marked as resolved as the intro is currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.184.90 (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

The agreed upon consensus for the introduction is to not write Imperial is in the top 10 universities in the world. Instead the consensus was established to write the the three major rankings (per the Proposal for Wording) to reduce biases.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At risk of violating the 3RR, I'm asking whether other edits believe we should have this statement in the lead. "Imperial is consistently ranked as one of the world's top ten universities". To me, this is misleading as only 2 rankings put the university in the top ten worldwide. In the ARWU it is ranked 22nd and this information is presented further down the article. Aloneinthewild (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

---

Yes, I think two other editors (myself included) have thought this was important to include. I agree with you that it does not belong as the first sentence for the introduction, and do not understand why it would be placed in the first sentence. As you noted above there are some graduate students from Imperial, like myself, who want to work in the US. Imperial is virtually unheard of in the United States, and it is very helpful for employers when reading about a school they have never heard of to understand that it is a world leading institution. In the UK it is relatively known, while where I am from in the US it is virtually unknown. The statement serves as a reference point for employers to understand and compare to US institutions from the US. I can understand that in only 2 out of 3 main international rankings Imperial has been consistently rated in the top 10 universities in the world. At the same time this is 2 out of the 3 main international rankings that Imperial has been consistently in the top 10 universities in the world! The sentence is not saying Imperial is ranked as the top 10 university in the world in every ranking, just that it has been placed in the top 10.

QS Rankings consistently placed Imperial in the top 10 for the last 7 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QS_World_University_Rankings THE Rankings consistently placed Imperial in the top 10 for the last 7 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Higher_Education_World_University_Rankings The sentence also includes a citation to the ARWU in case people want more information about the other main ranking. Check out ETH Zurich wikipedia, I do not think the sentence is that different.

There was a sentence awhile ago, that someone was more specific for the THE and QS rankings only, if that is preferred. As a researcher I do think this sentence is overall pretty accurate, but it can be more technically specific if there is confusion about it as innacurate. I am the second editor to like the sentence, and was not the originator of it. It is worth noting that the rankings were on this wiki previously and were thought valuable by other users also. Happy to understand and discuss others opinions as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.184.90 (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• No, per nom; clearly self-analysis and inappropriate tone. The most prominent rankings could be added to the lede, but neutrally and with due weight (if at all) - reflecting the article body. 86.28.184.90: while I appreciate your comments, Wikipedia has no business in catering to employers; it merely presents what sources state. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, a relief to hear someone agrees. It's rather endless trying to stop this biased editing occurring to this article. Aloneinthewild (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

This was an archived discussion on the Talk Page led by Biomedicinal titled Organization of the Lead. The organization and presentation of rankings was originally a mutually agreed upon resolution found by various reviewers. I know three reviewers, including the one who posted the idea, me, and Biomedicinal liked a ranking in the introduction and a resolution was thus found. This is similar to ETH Zurich or UC Berkeley. Please refer to the Organization of the lead archived resolution and discussion found. Biomedicinal had written a similar sentence in the ranking section, which I liked. If you want to reopen this discussion of what to include in the introduction, I am happy to collaborate with you on this and try to find new mutually agreeable terms if you want to re-discuss that long past discussion and agreed upon content resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.224.15 (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I note that the previously-agreed wording was "Imperial is consistently ranked among the top universities in the world, ranking 2nd in the 2014/15 QS World University Rankings and 9th in the 2014/15 Times Higher Education World University Rankings." (emphasis added). The italicised section has been removed, changing the meaning of the sentence from referring to those two rankings to referring to rankings in general – which is simply not factually correct. Robminchin (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• No - Summoned by bot. The content is promotional and WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

? - summoned by bot. Please comment on all these other university wikipedia page which cite a ranking as well, ETH Zurich, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Williams College, etc. This process seems standardized across many universities and is not against any wikipedia bylaws, unless you change the many other universities wiki pages as well who use the same process. Many people like rankings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.220.161 (talk) 00:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, not a valid reason to include questionable statements. As Robminchin mentions there is a discussion going on regarding rankings on university articles at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Universities Aloneinthewild (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• No The implication by omission of the statement is that all of the rankings agree. This is a failure to present both sides of an argument, and therefore non-NPOV. The statement could be improved by simply adding "in two of the three major international rankings". (It might be worth noting there is a relevant RfC on "University rankings in lede" in general in progress at Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Universities#rfctag) Robminchin (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Good point Robminchin! Agree with Robs solution too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.13.60 (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for wording

• Can I suggest we move to closing this RFC. I suggest we include an updated version of the wording that was previously present (updated because the ranking positions have changed recently). "Imperial is consistently ranked among the top universities in the world, ranking 8th in the both the 2016/17 QS World University Rankings and 2016/17 Times Higher Education World University Rankings and 22nd in the 2016 Academic Ranking of World Universities." Aloneinthewild (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Good proposal. I am happy with your updated version of the wording per your idea. It sounds like a good sentence to me, and there is no bias in your sentence, as it includes the three main rankings. I tried to keep your proposed idea, and reduce the number of times it shows 2016/17 in the sentence. You or others may be able to improve the sentence as well. Your idea is maintained and is a good one. "Imperial is consistently ranked among the top universities: In 2016/17 Imperial ranked 8th in the world in both the QS and THE rankings, and 22nd in the world in the ARWU rankings." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.13.60 (talk) 20:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It presents all the information succinctly and in an unbiased manner.Robminchin (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Aloneinthewild you can enter it in a sentence for all of us if you want to. You or anyone else can adjust it further as well if you want to further too. I am sure changes will improve what is there, while sticking to the idea discussed to avoid potential bias. Thanks everyone for your thoughts, and I am happy it is resolved in a beneficial mutually win-win manner.

I updated the QS ranking to 9th for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6003:5900:3DA5:580B:C225:ACD6 (talk) 05:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rankings Textbox

Ranking Textbox Design - People had previously complained that the textbox was difficult to read. I improved the ranking textbox so that it is easier to comprehend by updating the infobox to the world university rankings textbox that other universities have used. I know the topic of rankings can be a hot topic and universities in the UK are especially a hot topic because of their placement within the european Brexit context. Therefore I added this discussion topic for consensus and discussion. Do people like a cleaner presentation of rankings?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:6003:5900:496c:89f7:43cc:3275 (talk) 23:20, 25 December 2016‎

Disagree, we should stick with the previous table which is used by all UK universities for consistency. This table omits the complete and guardian rankings, which are two major league tables in the UK. Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree, I like the new textbox. I think it is easier to read. Other thoughts?

I do like 51jlzl's new table he made, which I think is quite nice! Maybe we should put the Complete. Guardian. and Sunday Times rankings below in a national ranking as per the thoughts of aloneinthe wild, to include a national rankings for consensus. Then we would only need Europe and World for the THE, QS, and ARWU rankings. Seeking to establish consensus. I like 51jlzl's table just as he made it too with the current columns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.198.122.243 (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Disagree, I have the same opinion as Aloneinthewild. It makes no sense for Imperial to use another ranking template when every British university in the UK - including Cambridge and Oxford - use the standard UK ranking template. Imperial does not have a strong valid argument to be the exception.EmyRussell (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Lieden Rankings - There is not an agreed consensus in regards to Lieden's rankings. Just because Aloneinthewild and EmyRussell like it, others such as Biomedicinal and myself have questioned the Lieden's rankings. There was further discussion on this ranking on UCL's talk page. Biomedicinal had a good idea to synthesize the rankings to just the major ones. I am not sure why this ranking as opposed to others, such as Reuter's Innovation Ranking (which adds a new dimension to the rankings) or The Ranking of Rankings (a composite of the top 5 major global university rankings or the Round University Ranking would be used. I personally feel Lieden is a very biased ranking, for example this year it has UC Santa Barbara above Oxford. There are currently 6 University of California public extremely large campuses who have a large research output because of the size of their school (40,000 students) in the top 20 rankings in the world. There is a bias against schools with less than 20,000 people. This for example does not mean that UC Santa Barbara is better than Oxford at research. Moreover there is a great deal of variability in this ranking measure, where it fluctuates dramatically. The Lieden ranking is not on the US ranking textbox either. This is not the consensus that Lieden should be used, perhaps there are other rankings that you may want to suggest instead. Please refer to Archive 2 on the established consensus.

Hi 64.183.18.235, please see Template talk:Infobox UK university rankings for the discussion. "I personally feel Lieden is a very biased ranking, for example this year it has UC Santa Barbara above Oxford" - personally, I think your own biasness is showing by making this statement. And upon looking at your edit history, it seems that you have a vested interested in Imperial College London. I would like to remind you to look up WP:COI closely, Wikipedia is an impartial platform for information to be disclosed. All further comments should be directed to the UK university rankings talk page there to prevent those who are only interested in one university from influencing the consensus. EmyRussell (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with your conclusion EmyRussell, this user (possibly other IPs) have a vested interest in trying to improve the appearance of Imperial College. In this case they don't like the lower ranking. IP if you have something to comment then see Template talk:Infobox UK university rankings Aloneinthewild (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, and personally feel you have bias against non-user name people. There is no consensus on this talk page that Leiden should be added, the previous consensus was on using the top three major rankings. ARWU (which does not favor imperial college), QS, and THE. I had proposed three other world university rankings systems besides leiden. Yet, there is no consensus leiden should be the additional indicator used here.

Some of my reasons for feeling leiden is biased:

1. bias against smaller institutions, example Caltech is ranked 172. Yet, zhenjiang university (45,000 students), university of sao paolo (88,000 students), shanghai jay tong university (43,000 students), Seoul National University (28,000 students), University of Tokyo (29,000 students) are all in the top 10 in this research based measure.

2. alignment of the rankings to other world university metrics (very far off... for example, University of Sao Paolo with over 88,000 students is ranked 8th in the Lieden ranking and between 100-250 in the QS, THE, and ARWU)

3. Useful of Ranking (this ranking is not in alignment with any of the other major rankings... ex. 5 of the top universities in the world are from large institutions in china, seoul, brazil, and canada), while typically top research powerhouses are not ranked as highly. (example, zhenjiang university and sao paolo are placed higher than MIT (49), Oxford (13), ETH Zurich (66), or Caltech (172) and few students should base school decisions off of this metric.

If you wish to propose other ranking metrics to include, that would be fine, otherwise I think the ARWU, THE, and QS are the rankings used on every other countries world rankings textbox to describe world university rankings. this ranking has a lot of biases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6003:5900:ACDF:7F38:B0B2:2859 (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Mikecurry1 (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)I agree with this logic. The consensus seemed to be to use the three main rankings ARWU, THE, and QS that every country reports. From archived discussion on the talk page.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Imperial College London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061210104621/http://www.london.ac.uk/495.html to http://www.london.ac.uk/495.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303231845/https://www.hesa.ac.uk/dox/pressOffice/sfr210/071277_student_sfr210_1314_table_3.xlsx to https://www.hesa.ac.uk/dox/pressOffice/sfr210/071277_student_sfr210_1314_table_3.xlsx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead (December 2017)

Hi, I've added an extra paragraph to the lead based on affiliations the university has. I've also gone back to the agreed wording of not saying Imperial is in the top 10, as agreed previously on the talk page. Any discussion can take place here.Aloneinthewild (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the added confusion, I was only trying to address the intro in the edits and did not mean to address the main article changes. Your main article changes were great!!!

Yes, we can use the agreed upon wording, "I've also gone back to the agreed wording of not saying Imperial is in the top 10, as agreed previously on the talk page."

I thought the new lead proposed was not written as sharply as the previously written lead, so tried to include two of your proposed changes I thought were excellent - particularly the part about White City, and also a 2nd sentence about alumni could be added that is concise and sharp. Maybe you or others have ideas for what to include about a 2nd staff and alumni sentence you proposed? https://www.imperial.ac.uk/alumni/imperial-alumni/alumni-stories/

I am not sure that a new paragraph needs to be written about affiliations, the endowment and budgeting for a concise introduction. This is succinctly on the side bar to the right discussing budgeting and the affiliations list. The intro was previously well written. Your 2 ideas do seem quite excellent in my opinion about the White City campus and alumni though, maybe we could incorporate those better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.80.145.202 (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I was a bit quick of the block there. I just didn't expect to be reverted in one edit. It would be best if you discuss here. I can probably leave out the affiliations and financial information. I will make some more tidying edits and we can form an agreement. A few things I will add back, 1) there are missing affiliations, 2) you tried to hide that you had removed the ARWU ranking, this is vital for a balanced view - however much you dislike it ARWU ranks Imperial not in the top 10. we've had a large discussion on this page before - we can have it again if you want, 3) I thought the REF2014 information was clearer before you changed it. Aloneinthewild (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense, and I agree. #1 In terms of missing affiliations - I did not know I had removed any affiliations, please insert them into the affiliations box. #2 Yes, I tried to say we could include the ARWU just above on this talk page. I do not have a problem with that at all, it's fine. My apologies too for any confusion, and that can stay in no problems. #3 REF 2014 - that can be made clearer too or reverted back. The article previously had both REF2014 and REF2008 listed so I synthesized them into the most current REF 2014 ranking as there is no point to have both listed. That was all I was trying to do.

Intro changes notes - I think the last version has slightly improved grammar. For example, there is a commma after a year (In 2018, the school was ranked). Generally, I think the last version was written slightly better by the community, while in my opinion the proposed change is wordier. Concise writing has a stronger impact. Many of the previous ideas were already synthesized into their most important elements in my opinion. For example, I think the alumni sentence has a lot of information in it already (Therefore adding more detail about 5 Nobel prize winners in Physiology or Medicine, 5 in Chemistry, and 5 in Physics may be too much. This can be read below for more information.). In terms of the other satellite campuses, these are smaller satellite campuses so maybe they do not need to be listed in the introduction summary, as it becomes a run on sentence. In terms of the four faculties, the word four is unneeded. It is already described by reading the faculties themselves. The fact that faculties are further divided into additional departments may not be necessary to relate in the introduction, and can be read in the article. Generally I think it is useful to know that there are faculties of Science, Medicine, Engineering, and Business. The rest becomes wordy. Same critiques as we continue with the proposed wording changes, is that the last version was written a drop sharper. I think we could include the ARWU, as you have desired. I think we could include a second alumni sentence you proposed, which would be helpful too. It's just a matter of figuring out what to put into the succinct second alumni sentence. I think the idea of including white city as a major second campus was a great idea too. Those changes will make the intro much better!

(Are you Mikecurry1, if so please login and sign your comments) I think it would be better to get further editors opinions as we will go back and forth between the two of us. As for the problems we have, I will cover my thoughts on them below:

• I'm a native English speaker so the language is not a problem for me and I can recognise grammar when it is correct. I understand some of my wording my appear "wordy" to those with English as a second language.
• I believe this sentence was better Imperial has major campuses in South Kensington and White City and five other campuses across London. The lead should summarise the article - currently it misses the fact there are additional campuses. These are home to Imperial's medical teaching which is quite an important aspect. (also what is an innovation campus?, there are no links, it means nothing to the average reader)
• Imperial is organised through faculties of Science, Medicine, Engineering, and Business. Using "through" is bad grammar. My proposal - Imperial is organised into four faculties - science, engineering, medicine and business - which are subdivided into departments and centres. Ok four may not be necessary, but the subjects should NOT be capitalised. They are common nouns, not proper nouns.
• You removed the dates from the rankings, this is important as the ARWU is not from 2018 but from 2017. The sentence should read as 'it is ranked x by the 2018 THE and QS rankings, and x by the ARWU ranking'
• Nobel laureates - ok I can agree it is not necessary. We have a link to the nobel laureates page now which is good.
• You have removed all the references from the rankings paragraph referring to the REF. This is bad, information needs to be verifiable by sources - I will revert this and maybe I can include some of your wording.
• Also, you removed this "In 2016, Imperial received £2 million to establish a DNA Synthesis and Construction Foundry to accelerate developments in new synthetic biology technologies." Any reason?

I think we are nearly there - thanks for discussing. IF you have a proposal for the alumni sentence please put it forward. I thought it would be good to say that not all of Imperial's illustrious alumni are academics (there are head's of state and politicians). Please understand that I am trying to improve the page so that it reaches a 'good article' standard, all my edits are in WP:good faith. Aloneinthewild (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• That makes sense. Those are good changes you just made. Mike Curry made the last edits, not me.
• As far as your points:
• Yes, it was obvious English is your native language.
• In only my opinion, I am not sure mentioning the satellite campuses are necessary in the introduction. It depends on what others think. If you feel mentioning the satellite campuses is important we can include this. The proposed sentence could possibly be split into separate sentences and definitely made much clearer. My confusion is that this sentence sounds like there are two main campuses, and then there are also other campuses across London. I do not think Imperial is like NYU, such that NYU is a campus spread out across New York City. Imperial is centrally located in South Kensington. White City is Imperial's new Innovation Campus, and this needs to be separated out from the main campus. This is because as a reader I would wonder why they have two primary campuses? The White City Campuses is for Research and Innovation and Spin Out's as well I think. The other campuses described are medical hospitals in London. So I think the sentence proposed could be described in two sentences to add clarity to it. Such as, "Imperial is located in South Kensington. It also has an Innovation Hub in White City and teaching hospitals across London." This is not perfect at all, but I think you understand my confusion with the proposed changes for this sentence. I think the proposed changes could be made clearer. If desired, we could definitely make this proposed change to expand what is listed as Imperial's campus.
• Mike Curry reverted this sentence change, "Imperial is organised into four faculties - science, engineering, medicine and business - which are subdivided into departments and centres." Faculties can just be listed without using four. I am also of the opinion that how these faculties are divided into departments does not add much here for an introduction summary sentence. It says more being concise here of which subjects are taught. I did try to improve how the faculties are further divided by organizing your departments created into a textbox in the academics section. I think this looks great in the academics section, trying to improve upon what you created. As for the intro I think it is better just more general, these are the main four subjects Imperial teaches, which is obvious when you read it. Therefore for that sentence something like, "Imperial is organised into faculties of science, engineering, medicine and business." or "Imperial is organised by faculties of science, engineering, medicine, and business."
• Agree with you that the REF references should be kept.
• Mike Curry had removed that about a £2 million research grant to establish a DNA Synthesis and Construction Foundry. You asked for a reason why it was removed and I don't know. This had never mattered for me personally. One guess is that there are a lot of serious research grants at Imperial, why is just one grant listed? You can put this back in if you want. An idea is we may want something about Imperial's research collaborations such as Imperial's collaboration with MIT, similarly to what is listed on Cambridge's Research Section page.
• Mike Curry had removed the dates. I do agree with him on that. There were several dates added that are wordy in my opinion too, and the dates are included in the reference already. You wrote, 'it is ranked x by the 2018 THE and QS rankings, and x by the 2017 ARWU ranking.' I think just saying the current year rankings are what matter, so 2018 is fine. I think the focus of the sentence is on the rankings and not on the year. Having 2 years listed makes the sentence more complicated as you are trying to focus on the various world rankings and not on the dates. Therefore, I think we could include 2017 from your sentence with something like, 'in "2017-18" it is ranked x in both the THE and QS, and x in the ARWU'. That way only one date is listed. I am using a derivation of your sentence, and it is fine including 2017 too. We may have just needed to list the date once though, instead of twice so the focus remains on the rankings.
• I did personally like the new sentence you added about alumni including heads of state, politicians in the House of Commons, not sure what else should be included? You had something about CEO's or there are people at the Bank of England, etc. I suggested this website as a good resource: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/alumni/imperial-alumni/alumni-stories/ Maybe we can check what other wikipages have and do something similar that is more for Imperial's distinct background and strengths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6003:5900:1C24:7C71:F7EE:8409 (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Title (edit warring)

The lead sentence is constantly being changed by editors - anon and user accounts. Can we have a consensus on this? One option is that we could put the official title in a ref-note. For other pages with a common article name that differs from the official name - see Durham University, Keele University Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Imperial's influence

It would be useful to have something on Imperial's influence in the world and in business. For example, showing pictures of Stephen Hawking's visit, the Emir of Qatar's recent visit, Imperial's influence in setting interest rates through the Bank of England, or visits by Mayors, President Xi of China, Prince William and Harry, etc. Imperial is very influential in the world and it would be good to include some pictures of these visits as well as Imperial's influence in areas such as business, in shaping London, influencing Brexit, etc., Mikecurry1 (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I had added some pictures with students and staff meeting with foreign leaders into the global section. Mikecurry1 (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Photos

Shadowssettle suggested to discuss the photos as there were several changes. Yes, lets remove the image of the meeting room. It showed Imperial's facilities as it was next to the facilities section. This can be removed. No reason was given for removing the farmer's market picture; I think Imperial's farmer's markets are a central part of Imperial students lives since the market is centrally located on campus. Farmer's markets are also on several wiki university pages - for example Brown University. So perhaps that photo can still be included? I had added some photos of world leaders such as President Xi or Prince Albert, speaking with students at Imperial, but those were taken down as I did not take that photo for permissions (despite me emailing in), which was disappointing. There are also 2 photos taken of the same building Beit Hall and Quad and 2 of Princes Gardens trees. I thought generally having one photo of a building or space is preferred so we can show a wider variety of complimentary photos of the university - rather than several of same building taken from different perspectives. Perhaps we can use either of the two beit hall photos, such as the one you just uploaded? That one looked good. I viewed the 2 Beit photos as a photo of the entrance compared to the side of the building - and the text is what is essentially different about it as the building has a multiple uses including residence and student union). Perhaps we can use one photo and instead update the text? There were also 2 photos showing the main entrance, so I had removed one. I can understand why we use 2 photos here, even though one can be better, if the other is highlighting exhibition road. That photo showing exhibition road is a bit gloomy though, so it is not the best photo. Perhaps we can use a similar photo of exhibition road with better weather, or one with the main entrance since all the major construction? example example? Mikecurry1 (talk) 05:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The meeting room isn't exactly a prime college facility - a picture of one of the college-run bars or social spaces, Ethos, or the like might be more appropriate - however, if you feel that it is appropriate until such time as more representative facility photos have been uploaded, then I can see your point. The farmer's market doesn't show it in the context of Imperial, with the easily missable hall in the background not clearly showing its relevance to the college. I don't think that a photo of an open market is particularly relevant anyways, but if it is to be part of the article, then shouldn't it be actually a picture relating the event more to the college, rather than here's some random stall. In terms of the 2 photos involving Beit Quad, I do see your point in terms of two pictures of the same "thing", however, one shows the student hall, which is a different building of the quad to the Union building (the hall making up the south three sides and the Union building separately making up the north side). One is something that only small minority of first years use and most people pass through into the quad (hence its placement in the student housing section), and the other is a central part of the college's social scene. Showing multiple buildings on quads is not that uncommon, however, I do see that they seem to form the same complex. In terms of the Prince's Gardens halls, I definitely see your point, I though the two pictures gave a little different meaning, but just using one is probably for the best. The photo of the main entrance is a little gloomy - it is not meant to be showing exhibition road, but the main entrance itself. I suggest it be left unless a better copyright-free photo of the main entrance (as the focus of the photo in particular) can be found or uploaded, as it is the college's official main entrance, and the main part of the college tourists to the area are likely to see and associate with the college passing by._{(see conflict of interest)} Shadowssettle_(talk) 13:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposal:

Trying to find ways for agreement between our thoughts, let me know if you think this works?

Main entrance - keep - new improved photo needed

Farmers Market - keep - new improved photo needed - photo can relate the market to the outdoor social space that students use

Facility bulding - remove - replace with a photo of college bars/social spaces

Princes Gardens - keep

Beit Quad - keep - use one of the two photos unless the second image is updated which I think would be an improvement. It appears your inserted image and caption is trying to describe the bar, restaraunt, and club, which I thought was a great idea. Yet the image is not showing these. Perhaps if you could take a picture of a bar in beit quad (as you suggested) we could use that rather than a second photo of the building exterior? For example. Then the second photo would be an image of the bar, restaurant, and nightclub on the ground floor of the Union you were trying to describe with your caption. Otherwise, I think we should just show the photo from the wikipedia article on beit quad since only one photo is needed of the beit quad building exterior.

Mikecurry1 (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that seems fine, (personally I think the Farmer's market photo should be removed until an appropriate photo has been found, as the current on is not seemingly of relevance). I also think the original photo used for Beit Hall was prefferable to the current one in Student Housing from the Hall's page, can I inquire as to why the change?

• Main entrance - keep for now (replace on availability of new photo)
• Farmer's Market - keep for now (or remove for now?)
• Meeting room - keep for now (until college bars, gym and/or social facility photos available)
• Prince's Gardens - keep as currently is
• Union Building, Beit Quad - keep for now (as with meeting room)

Shadowssettle_(talk) 21:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good Shadowsettle, lets do that. There was no reason for the Beit Quad change in photo, it was just the one already used for the Beit Quadrangle wiki page, so I put it there to also view. You can choose whichever of the three photos you prefer, they all seem good to me. I think just one of Beit Quad is preferable unless a second photo shows the interior such as the bar there you brought up. Any of the exterior photos is fine though, your choice if you think the orignial photo was better than the current ones. As far as the Farmer's Market photo, we do not need to use that one and it can be removed. I thought it was nice as it was showing a social part of the school that happens outdoors every week. It does not need to be used if you don't like it. Your solution sounds good to implement. I put a nice picture of Ethos Gym on the facilites section per your suggestion, and removed the meeting room. Please change the Beit Quad photo to whichever of the two you prefer. I think we are both in agreement on your solution, and that better photos could be used for the wiki. Mikecurry1 (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

It's been a couple days without a response to this. Therefore, did you want to choose which of the two Beit Quad photo's is preferable to include?Mikecurry1 (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Whichsoever is preffered is fine Shadowssettle_(talk) 18:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Just used one of the several Beit Quad photos. You readded this one previously, so used that one. Please adjust that to the one you prefer. Mikecurry1 (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

From discussions with Shadowssettle we had consensus and were thinking that high quality photos could be found for:

• the main entrance
• one of the college-run bars (such as the bar inside Beit Hall) or other social spaces
• World leaders speaking with students and faculty at Imperial (such as President Xi, Prince Albert of Monaco, or The Emir of Qatar Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad Al Thani) (these photos were previously quite well liked by others and could be added with appropriate copyright permissions, which I had trouble sourcing) Mikecurry1 (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Shadowssettle: Thanks for adding a new photo of the Farmer's Market! I like that. You also added 2 nice additional photos to the intro. Check out University of Cambridge University of Oxford articles. These sites do not have as many photos in the history section. The current photos in the history section are really good too. Perhaps we could choose one of these two new photos added, such as the new Prince Albert one. That way the article is synthesized and not more cluttered with photos like Cambridge or Oxford pages who have achieved good article status. Then we could maybe rotate the photos from side to side or something as those articles do. Like your last edit a lot and photos!

Hospitals

I'm not sure I like the table for the hospitals, I thought the bullet point list was sufficient. Aloneinthewild (talk) 11:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, lets go back to the previous version for hospitals with bullet points. I liked the bullet point version better too. Mikecurry1 (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Concur — I tried to make them work by introducing new titles, but they still don't seem to sit right there. Could we rv for now (older less controversial versions normally are preferred until resolved, if anyone's wondering why) and then Ehrenkater (talk · contribs) can discuss their views here? Shadowssettle_(talk) 12:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)