Talk:Imperial College London/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Organization of the Lead (Brainstorming New Models & Prototypes)

@Shadowssettle:, @Robminchin:, @Biomedicinal:, @Aloneinthewild:

It was proposed by Biomedicinal awhile back that the lead follow the organizational structure of the wiki article:

"Intro.& history --> organization & admin. --> academic profile (including research) & student life --> notable alumni"

I think this proposal is good and common sense. I think currently the lead is based on @Biomedicinal:'s proposed paragraph structure:

1 Intro and history

2 Campuses and organisation

3 Academic profile and alumni

I am happy with Biomedicinal's organizational structure. At the same time I am open to accepting other paragraph structures and brainstorming several new organizational models for the lead that we think will work well. It is important we are not fixated on one particular paragraph structure as a solution, therefore, I think we would need to brainstorm many paragraph solutions to be successful, and can then vote amongst the several alternative succesful models if we want to make a change. For any model proposed, it should provide a link to a prototype of a similar wiki university site, so that we can clearly visualize what the lead looks like.

One thing that was currently discussed is moving STEM in the opening paragraph now. I think is fine and I guess this could fold into our current organization as it is Intro and history, or we could propose alternative organizational structures.

Example: If there are desired models one wishes to brainstorm it would be helpful if you can display a paragraph structure, and a link to a wiki university prototype

ETH Zurich

1 Intro and History

2 Rankings

3 Alumni

Thanks!, Mikecurry1 (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a talk separate section, but if it makes things clearer. I have already outlined what I would think would be a good layout for a structure: most important first followed by the rest, so I don't see the point in repeating that. If you want to bring ETHZ into this, sure, but it completely agrees with the underlying premises of my structure: only foundation history being in the lead paragraph, university focus also in the lead paragraph. Of course it doesn't put any more of it's equally extensive history (1845 vs 1855) in it's intro section, so that would mean sacrificing much more of the things there is a general consensus to keep. My views on structure have been outlined, and I complete agree that the first paragraph should have history in it. That's not to say that all of the history should be there, as much of it is not important enough to be in the opening paragraph. I linked a host of the most notable uni pages, which all have problems (boosterism, etc.) but whose underlying structure may be useful to analyse. The overarching pattern is as follows (feel free to check against pages):

1. Name and type, city, foundation history (to some extent), situation (part of a larger structure, famous (WP:BOOSTERISM so please let's not follow that; I have brought this issue up at WP:HED), etc.)

see ETHZ MIT Princeton Oxon Cantab Harvard etc.

Some shorter intros skip the next paragraph see ETHZ, MIT

2 option 1. Extended history

see Harvard Stanford Yale

2 option 2. Organisation, administration, academics and often location

see Princeton Oxon Cantab etc. +Yale paragraph 3

No standard for any intermediate paragraphs

last. Alumni etc. for almost all of them, as with this article, no arguments here

My suggestion is to merge the two paragraph two options as there seems to be consensus here that the information currently in the intro should be kept, and merging them because neither of them would really work on their own, although with expansion a Yale model could work (not preferred as Yale has a more extensive history, it's not really the same). There are some articles that don't follow this pattern, but I went through the high profile ones so it should cover most of them. Shadowssettle_(talk) 18:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Shadowssettle. That was a really useful edit. I'll check out those examples, and let you know my opinion. Perhaps, other people have ideas and opinions on the structure of the lead too.

On the other note, I just saw the issue you linked to on HED on boosterism. I agree with you, and think boosterism is rampant across wiki university pages. It's important and really hard to address as there are proud students. I tried to bring a more npov to the UC Berkeley and Stanford pages awhile ago, which I found in my opinion to be particularly a lot of boosterism at the time. Mikecurry1 (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Robminchin and Mikecurry1: Do you know if we can have any conclusion on this, it seems to just be us three involved and at last check me and User:Robminchin we for the change (my suggestion here is identical to the effect of the change after South Ken. is moved to the second paragraph) and User:Mikecurry1 was against it. It would be nice if we could have some consensus. Shadowssettle_(talk) 18:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

That was really useful brainstorm to see which prototypes you like from other university pages. I will also add the University of Toronto structure too. It is clean and sharp. It is on the good article guide.

I am also copying this from the higher university page to guide us in choosing a structure:

"Lead – This should include basic information: the name(s) of the institution, location (city name; describe multiple campuses if present), founder and founding name, and affiliation with any larger university system or major local affiliate network, if applicable. Give other names for which the university may be known (e.g. Cal) and bold them, too. Use italic text for names that aren't in English. A thumbnail sketch of the dominant and distinguishing characteristics should be given in the lead, and expanded later. Attributes should include public/private, coeducational/single-sex, 2/4-year, religious affiliation if applicable, and type (liberal arts college, multi-school university, vocational school, research institution, community college, etc.). It should be mentioned whether it is an undergraduate-only institution, or if graduate programs are present (and if so, specific stand-alone programs like medical, law, and divinity schools should be mentioned). Do not include images in the lead; they should be placed elsewhere. The lead should not include information not covered in the main body of the article. Summarize the rest of the article without giving undue weight to any particular section (such as rankings) and mention distinguishing academic, historical, or demographic characteristics. The lead should be a concise summary of the entire article – not simply an introduction."

I was trying to understand what one possible idea was "to merge the two paragraphs two options" meant. Are the two paragraph two options, 2 option 1 and 2 option 2? I am a little confused.

The articles you prototyped seemed to be mostly consistent in their structure. Some like Harvard and Yale have an introduction statement, then history, academic profile and organization, and alumni. This is a fine structure.

Others had slightly different paragraph structures, but mostly similar enough. Which of these prototype structures from your list that you like, do you prefer? You mentioned Yale? Any others?

I think MIT's paragraph structure is not as clear or well written as Harvard's, and could use some work in my opinion, as it is a bit mixed all together. All the other prototypes you mentioned were mostly fine with me I think. Some I may have more preference than others, if you list a few you like, perhaps we can find one we both like.

I was thinking a bit more about something you mentioned earlier in terms of structure that I think could work as an idea if you like it.

Perhaps, one idea is to have a 'topline information' paragraph you mentioned in an introduction paragraph that states the information you were just mentioning: What it is? - (Imperial focusing on science engineering medicine and business). It's central london in South Kensington would fit there as that is defining (why you moved it up originally). And Imperial being a more international education perhaps or something else. Then as you proposed, paragraph 2 would be the history paragraph or as you said (history of mergers), Paragraph 3 would be about academics, and paragraph 4 would be about alumni/rankings etc (the same). So I think it would just be placing the topline information as an introduction paragraph, instead of mixing it all together, which may make it more clear. That would incorporate everything you said topline earlier about having that in the first paragrah and is similar to your early proposal to move the information up and is clear. What do you think? Mikecurry1 (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The U of T structure is interesting; I didn't consider it as part of my survey but since it has GA status it's definitely reasonable. I'm not sure it's the right idea for this article as it would be significantly different, and focuses on some things Imperial doesn't have (sports to any serious or noteworthy level in terms of source coverage; a college structure, at least since the 2001 reorganisation)

I'm not really a fan of putting "international" in the lead paragraph as that's a nebulous concept—many institutions claim to be and saying that might have to be a WP:SYNTH of sources just saying it has a highly international population.

In terms of what the structure should be, you we're right what I meant for paragraph 2, a merger of the two options I outlined, which would lead us to what we ended up with originally when we started the discussion, plus or minus a little. I think we've both switched sides on South Kensington in para1, I now agree with your relegation of it to para2 since it's nonstandard for a uni article to have it's exact location in para1.

If your outline was for a different structure idea to what I was suggesting; I think you might be on to something. Although I don't agree exactly with the exact specifics, making paragraph 2 the real history paragraph and moving that completely out of paragraph 1 could work. Maybe we should move more of the history out of the first paragraph to the second, and just leave a more summary of the history in the first paragraph, something like:

“ <!—— Topline intro ——>

Imperial College London (legally Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine) is a public research university in London. Founded by Royal Charter in 1907 out of three scientific and technical colleges dating back to 1845, the college focuses exclusively on science, technology, medicine and business.

<!—— History ——>

With the foundation of the Royal College of Chemistry in 1845, followed by the Royal School of Mines in 1851, Imperial grew out of Prince Albert's vision of an area for culture built from the Great Exhibition of 1851, including the Royal Albert Hall, Imperial Institute, numerous museums, and the Royal Colleges that would go on to form the college. In 1907, Imperial College was established by Royal Charter from King Edward VII, merging the Royal College of Science, Royal School of Mines, and City and Guilds College. In 1988, the Imperial College School of Medicine was formed by combining with St Mary's Hospital Medical School. In 2004, Queen Elizabeth II opened the Imperial College Business School. The college gained independence from the University of London on its centenary in 2007, which it had been part of since 1908.

<!—— Campuses, organisation, and academics ——>

The college's main campus is located in South Kensington, and it has an innovation campus in White City, a research field station at Silwood Park, and teaching hospitals throughout London. Imperial has an international community, with more than 59% of students from outside the UK and 140 countries represented on campus. The college and its predecessors have been the birthplace of penicillin, holography, and fibre optics.

<!—— Academic profile and alumni——>

In 2019–20, Imperial is internationally ranked 9th in the QS World University Rankings, 10th in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings, 8th in Reuters The World's Most Innovative Universities, and 24th in the Academic Ranking of World Universities. Student, staff, and researcher affiliations include 14 Nobel laureates, 3 Fields Medalists, 1 Turing Award winner, 74 Fellows of the Royal Society, 87 Fellows of the Royal Academy of Engineering, and 85 Fellows of the Academy of Medical Sciences.

”

To me this doesn't work as well as the original suggestion (which might be ironed out a little I agree and formalised into sections), but I thought I'd lay it out in case you want to build it into an alternative. Shadowssettle_(talk) 08:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

References

The current edit is looking pretty good organisationally. There is some finessing of the language needed still, e.g. "the Imperial College School of Medicine was formed by combining with St Mary's Hospital Medical School." - this looks like something that was combined with St Mary's has gone missing from the sentence, possibly something like "the Imperial College School of Medicine was formed by the incorporation of St Mary's Hospital Medical School into the college" would be better. "International" as used here doesn't bother me – it's clearly placed in the context of the majority of the student community being international, so comes across as stating relevant facts rather than boosterism. Robminchin (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think this current edit is looking pretty good organisationally too, and would also agree that it could use a drop of finesse on some of the language. I am happy with this proposal for a structural change as it is clear. You can incorporate it if you want onto the main page. Robminchin's sentence about St Mary's hospital is an improvement, as it is more clear and should be changed too. We can edit from there, and still discuss here, as I agree there is a drop more finessing on the language (as well as discussion what should be in a new topline intro.)Mikecurry1 (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mikecurry1: I still don't see how leaving that much history straight in the first intro paragraph is a good idea, and am yet to see any reason it should be there; it would be helpful if you could justify the current format. The ideas that have been brought up are founded in the various ideas used by other universities; and as I have shown it is highly unusual for the intermediate history information to be left there, and seems like completely ignoring the priorities of the reader:

• Oh I've never heard of Imperial what is it?
• It's founded in 1907, and is a university in London
• Great! What does it do?
• The medical school formed in 1988
• Okay... so it does medicine, is it a general university?
• The business school formed in 2004

and so on...

Whilst this might be exaggerating the argument, putting so much focus on the foundation of two faculties is highly strange, and reads as such. The intro to the lead is meant to cover the most important things a reader could know, not just some dates. Shadowssettle_(talk) 19:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

There's also something that needs to be checked, I don't think the school of medicine was founded in 1988, that's when St. Mary's joined. The school I think formed later with the '95 mergers. If this is corrected, it may even complicate further the initial paragraph Shadowssettle_(talk) 19:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

@Robminchin: International as it is currently phrased is fine by me, I wouldn't want to call the university international, however. Could you also look over my points above? Shadowssettle_(talk) 19:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey Shadowssettle, I think Robminchin and I were agreeing with you about your writing sample proposal, and were happy with that one.

Similar to you, I also don't see how leaving history in the first intro paragraph is a good idea. The first paragraph would be the (topline intro) - an introduction to the school - of "what it (Imperial) is," so like you I do not see any reason for the history to be in paragraph 1. As you proposed paragraph 2 would be the history paragraph (history of mergers)- where the history would be. So we are in complete agreement. We were both saying your writing sample that you just proposed looked pretty good. I think robminchin and I agreed that it was a clear organizational structure. If you wanted to incorporate your actual writing sample above I think we both thought organizationally it was pretty good, then we can finesse the language a little bit more.

I am also confused why I am justifying a structure you are proposing - I would assume you would like your own proposal. :) That is probably the best justification. Another reason the structure you are proposing is good is because it is similar in its orgniziational structures to the wiki's by Harvard University and Yale University. The organization is very clear with the first paragraphan having an introduction to the school "what it is", followed by the history in the second paragraph. If you wish to incorporate your proposed writing sample above you are welcome to, and we can edit it from there on the main page, or we can discuss further. We would still want to discuss what is in the topline intro paragraph 1 - I am in agreement that the history should not be in paragraph 1.Mikecurry1 (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I've got a bit confused. Robminchin mentioned the current edit, which I thought would mean the page as it is live now, which has the problems I mentioned. Which version are you talking about? The one written out here, or the one that I was describing earlier (much the same as the original edit, but with South Kensington moved further down). I am fine with either, and you're totally right that there's no need to justify my edits to me, that's my job to do to you :-)! I am guessing you mean the 4 paragraph proposal I wrote up above, not the three paragraph one I also proposed and explained above (but didn't write out). If it's either of the above, feel free to copy it or say so and I'll do the final changes; either way I'm glad we can reach a consensus!

Of course feel free to start doing copy edits to it (as always, just making sure you know I'm not saying that's the perfect one as it is and I will fight for it and own the lead). Again I wish to caution about rephrasing language which could introduce historical and factual inaccuracies, or half-truths; it can be satisfying to come up with some really nice phrasing, but if it misdirects the reader it may not be helpful. However, we can come to that if and when we come to that; obviously cited sources would be helpful if the meaning of the intro changes and a disagreement arises.

Again, thank you for being constructive here; I've noticed elsewhere (WT:HED, let alone other pages like American universities when intro disputes arise) how easy it is for some experienced editors to jump straight in and be WP:UNCIVIL; it's been great to not have that! Shadowssettle_(talk) 19:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Robminchin: just to check which you mean... Shadowssettle_(talk) 20:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I was talking about your proposed four paragraph organisanation was looking pretty good, and that would be fine to incorporate. I already thought the current paragraph organization on the main page was pretty good. If you wanted to use your new proposed structure with the four paragraphs (the writing sample) I am perfectly fine with that and it can be incorporated. We would need to finesse out the text on that four paragraph version a little bit more as well as decide what is in the first "what it is" paragraph. The history section having the new medical school, and the current queen of england opening the business school as well as the college's main entrance would fit well in the second paragraph I think as they are quite historically significant and notable. So the history should be fine. Our last step is to finesse the wording and determine what to have in the introduction - "what it is" paragraph? Mikecurry1 (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Mikecurry1: Your changes don't match a consensus here. I personally am concerned with the changes you made involving spending too much time on the Great Exhibition, and completely omitting other parts of the history. The two points you note in the comment above would have been fine as they're already consensus they should be in a lead paragraph, however the history of the Great Exhibition and the removal of earlier history was not part of any discussion here, and personally I don't understand your logic for this change of content in the introduction, nor do I see it as sensible, so it'd be good to form a consensus over it. I understand these might have been WP:BOLD, so I'll thank-you for continuing to contribute to the article! Shadowssettle_(talk) 17:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Shadowssettle:I was trying to incorporate your proposed structure and move this forward - and just finesse the language. (I was not trying to do a bold edit). We can continue to discuss on here that is fine. The history paragraph in the proposed writing sample was different from the main page. That first sentence in the proposed writing sample felt disjointed - as it had lots of ideas in it. So I thought the proposed writing sample change could use synthesis to choose the main ideas for that sentence. So I tried to choose two of the several proposed ideas in it - the previous one on prince albert (already with consensus) and one of your several new idea's on the great exhibition which you had in the writing sample. (The royal colleges and royal school of mines was in the intro right below, so used great exhibition.) As that sentence was a run on sentence in the proposed writing sample, I split the two ideas into two seperate sentences. I thought that would improve clarity and flow. So I was just trying to include your new proposed ideas and finesse it. We do not need to change the history from the main page and can leave it alone and just work on the first paragraph if you prefer. Hopefully we can wrap this up quickly. I have included my first attempt to finesse the language. Most important is to discuss the first paragraph introduction. I included the part of the sentence about STEM, and the royal charter, but did not see the reason to write one of three technical colleges dating back to 1845... as that felt like boosterism to me here. (I also liked the new academic section changes, and made some finesse touches to that.) I was just trying to incorporate your structure edit and robminchins st mary's sentence change. The edit below, was trying to finesse the language: Mikecurry1 (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

<!—— Introduction ——>

Imperial College London (legally Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine) is a public research university in London. Founded by Royal Charter in 1907, the college focuses exclusively on science, technology, medicine and business.

<!—— History ——>

The inspiration for Imperial began with the 1851 Great Exhibition in Hyde Park, the first World Fair organized by Henry Cole and Prince Albert, husband of the reigning monarch, Queen Victoria. Using the expo's proceeds, Prince Albert built his vision for an area including the Royal Albert Hall, Victoria & Albert Museum, Natural History Museum, Imperial Institute, and the Royal Colleges that would go on to form the college. In 1907, Imperial College was established by Royal Charter, merging the Royal College of Science, Royal School of Mines, and City and Guilds College. The Imperial College School of Medicine was formed by incorporation of St Mary's Hospital Medical School into the college in 1988. In 2004, Queen Elizabeth II opened the Imperial College Business School. The college gained independence from the University of London on its centenary in 2007.

<!——Campuses, organisation, and academics——>

The college's main campus is located in South Kensington, it has an innovation campus in White City, a field station for ecology, evolution, and conservation at Silwood Park, and teaching hospitals throughout London. The college and its predecessors have been the birthplace of penicillin, fibre-optics, and recently Covid-19 policies. Imperial has an international community, with more than 59% of students from outside the UK and 140 countries on campus.

<!——Academic profile and alumni——>

In 2019–20, Imperial is internationally ranked 9th in the QS World University Rankings, 10th in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings, 8th in Reuters The World's Most Innovative Universities, and 24th in the Academic Ranking of World Universities. Student, staff, and researcher affiliations include 14 Nobel laureates, 3 Fields Medalists, 1 Turing Award winner, 74 Fellows of the Royal Society, 87 Fellows of the Royal Academy of Engineering, and 85 Fellows of the Academy of Medical Sciences.

References

I'm going to go through one by one the differences so we can discuss them individually, maybe I can see why you want them, and you can see why they don't seem helpful to me.

“ <!—— Topline intro ——>

Imperial College London (legally Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine) is a public research university in London. Founded by Royal Charter in 1907 out of three scientific and technical colleges dating back to 1845¹, the college focuses exclusively on science, technology, medicine and business.

<!—— History ——>

With the foundation of the Royal College of Chemistry in 1845, followed by the Royal School of Mines in 1851, Imperial grew out of Prince Albert's vision of an area for culture built from the Great Exhibition of 1851, including the Royal Albert Hall, Imperial Institute, numerous museums, and the Royal Colleges that would go on to form the college.²The inspiration for Imperial began with the Great Exhibition of 1851 in Hyde Park, the first World Fair organized by Henry Cole and Prince Albert, husband of the reigning monarch, Queen Victoria. Using the fair's proceeds, Prince Albert built his vision for an area including the Royal Albert Hall, Victoria & Albert Museum, Natural History Museum, Imperial Institute, and the Royal Colleges that would go on to form the college.³ In 1907, Imperial College was established by Royal Charter from King Edward VII, merging the Royal College of Science, Royal School of Mines, and City and Guilds College. In 1988, the Imperial College School of Medicine was formed by incorporation of St Mary's Hospital Medical School into the collegecombining with St Mary's Hospital Medical School⁴. In 2004, Queen Elizabeth II opened the Imperial College Business School. The college gained independence from the University of London on its centenary in 2007, which it had been part of since 1908⁵.

<!—— Campuses, organisation, and academics ——>

The college's main campus is located in South Kensington, and⁶ it has an innovation campus in White City, a research field stationa field station for ecology, evolution, and conservation⁷ at Silwood Park, and teaching hospitals throughout London. Imperial has an international community, with more than 59% of students from outside the UK and 140 countries represented on campus. The college and its predecessors have been the birthplace of penicillin, holography, and fibre optics.

”

References

1. I can see an argument about repeating similar content in the first and second paragraph. However, if you look at the universities linked (eg Harvard) they contain some foundational history summarised in the first paragraph. I don't know why this should be any different (feel free to explain your thoughts here as with all these points), keeping a short explanation in para1 and a slightly longer history in para2.
2. The remove of pre-Great Exhibition content seems strange and weird. In your past edits here (the following is not an accusation, it's an opportunity for us to see where we're coming from and not skirt around the issues) you've removed this information. Seeing as it's an important part of the colleges foundation history, I am confused as to why.
3. You've repeatedly opted for emphasising both the history of Albertopolis and the neighbouring institutions, which I personally find partly at odds with an introduction:
   1. Yes, the history of Albertopolis should be mentioned here, however that's very different to giving the exact history of who helped found the Great Exhibition, where the great exhibition was, etc. Maybe some of that information should be present here so obviously additions might be a good idea, however, I thought my original coverage of this was quite good for two reasons:
      1. It didn't excessively cover the topic, it mentioned where it came from and it's relevance
         1. Do we need to know Henry Cole was involved, he doesn't play a role in the college
         2. People wanting to know it was the first World's Fair can read that article, this is not an article about the Great Exhbition
         3. Prince Albert being Victoria's husband seems a little excessive, it's not particularly relevant, anyone wanting to know more can go see it
      2. I preferred the phrasing, which isn't really a point, just personal taste
   2. No we don't need a list of every single institution founded here. This was a point of major contention in the past, with you wanting to keep an extensive list, but may I repeat, this is not an article about Albertopolis. Please see that article if you want to include a list of all institutions there. Personally, I think almost none of the listed institutions should be here, however, the listing of some of them was an attempt at a compromise.
4. This looks like a good change, although it should be by incorporating or by the incorporation, either way it's minor and I like the rephrasing
5. Imperial was part of a wider university for most of it's exisistence. This is a crutial part of the college's history, for all of those years students were not awarded Imperial degrees but London degrees. Funding came from the University of London. Students lived in University of London halls. etc. etc. Removing the date this came true seems a little weird, especially given the other swathes information that were added.
6. This is a grammar error—two sentences can't be joined by a comma. Either use a semi-colon or keep the and. I don't know why a grammar error would be specifically introduced
7. This seems like a lot of effectively tautological (I mean, it's a bio station, one of these says enough) information for what is realistically a minor part of the college. Maybe just "ecological" or "biological" would do?

I am fine with everything else as far as I can tell, it might be interesting to see what Robminchin's (if he's not done with this discussion, that is) thoughts are. When you said improving the language, that doesn't necessarily mean content and focus change, although I will readily agree they can be sometimes crucial to improving phrasing. Shadowssettle_(talk) 19:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I was doing my best to incorporate your structure and edits, I posted it on the main page as I thought it would have been fine, but I guess was confrontational. Please be open and do not be defensive. I was trying to expand on the content and focus from your proposal.

I agree with you that a summary is fine in the first paragraph. We need to discuss what should be in the first paragraph. I left two of the three proposed things in the draft, which were fine to me. I agree it can be discussed if that needs to be repeated with royal charter in the intro. It was fine with me though and the part about STEM was good there too. The part about one of three colleges felt like boosterism to me when I read it - as it felt arbitrarily like we are selecting imperial to be of historically selective importance - i have not seen it said that imperial is one of a select few colleges in the way that cambridge and oxford are one of two. a discussion is about mit and caltech about one of two often. Why are we saying one of three, why not one of four with eth zurich, etc, for example) Maybe it is not boosterism and I was misreading that? Perhaps you have other ideas for the first pargarph too in how to explain "what it is?" I guess we need to think about what to say for the "what it is" paragraph, which would be helpful to discuss as it is a new short paragraph.

The removed added content had nothing to do with the pre-great exhibition colleges or content, and more to do with there being too many proposed ideas in a sentence - which made it disjointed. You added two new ideas for proposed content there - the great exhbition and royal colleges. I was trying to synthesize the two new idea proposed and have a sentence with one of these ideas. So I was rather trying to expand on your idea to include great exhibition in that sentence and keep the one idea instead of having two new ones for added clarity. The royal college merger and royal school of mines are already in the intro directly below (if you want that could be reworded - if needed), so I kept the great exhbition part of proposed content rather than the other part. I thought the great exhibition content was a notable idea and good proposed inclusion. I was not trying to focus on albertopolis, but rather to expand on your point to include the great exhibition in an easy to understand sentence about how it helped form the college. I was synthesizing the proposed several ideas, as there was too much listed from several ideas.

Henry Cole would not need to be mentioned.

For your Great Exhibition proposed inclusion, I was trying to add explanation to the sentence to improve readability. In regards to the great exhibition being a world fair - that can be taken out if desired, it is an explanation of what it is to improve readability. It was a world fair for culture and industry. Check out the great exhibition article too for how they explain it in the intro: Great_Exhibition

Prince Albert as Victoria's husband of the reigning monarch adds historical significance and context (which is helpful to understand as you are reading an article). Many people are not familiar with many of these things so the explination improves readability (which is why it is in the great exhibition article). Your preference for whether it should be included, as it would not need to be included.

With regards to the museum we previously had consensus with aloneinthewild, where he proposed several sentences with the museums included. There was a previous consensus with it included. It may not be important to you, but for me I think this is a part of what Imperial is to me. For me the surrounding context is an important part of "what Imperial is" to me personally - outside of campus you are surrounded by world class museums - it's a cultural mecca. Imperial is listed also in the intro for the wiki article on the Victoria and Albert Museum too. I do not see a reason for you to change that when it is important to others, so maybe you can let that go? It's about compromise right? I am trying to write a new intro and change the strucutre - which is time consuming for me - specifically to make you happy and incorporate what you like too.

The removal of the second date was in part because you said there were a lot of dates listed. The second date in the sentence becomes redudent information when we have centenary in the same sentence (so of course it would be 100 years difference). I had no issues with this at the end of the sentence, I was trying to finesse the language.

Just one word is fine for the part about the field station. Using either ecological or ecology is fine. As you noted silwood park is such a minor part of the college you are also welcome to take out the field station part from the intro too as it may not be needed.

Do you want to try to give an edit a go here? See the edit I did just below mine again for my proposed edit of yours, as we were both on the talk page at the time, it is slightly different than the crossed out version. I guess whenever anyone posts to the main page it becomes confrontational with a new introduction, so lets talk here instead as that was constructive. I was simply trying to incorporate what you wrote in your new writing sample proposal and finesse that for improved flow. Please be open. Mikecurry1 (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not confrontational, it's just not consensus; I am sorry if I'm coming across defensive. I'll address your comments individually. I do this only as I find it gets messy quickly if points become intermingled:

• I don't feel adding founding colleges is anywhere near boosterism. It's an important part of the college's history, and until 2001~2003 the colleges were Imperial, students were members of them and they were integral constituent parts of the college. If you look at University of Bristol or University of Manchester you'll see they too reference their former colleges in their history, it's the way many universities in this country were formed. Ignoring that because it seems to Oxbridge-y to you, when it really isn't Oxbridge-y at all, seems counterproductive. As an crucial part of the formation of the college, I don't see how in any way this is some form of boosterism. They existed. They formed the college. They were its academic faculties for nearly a century. Students today are still members of those college's students' unions.
• I agree with you that the Great Exhibition can have more information about it slightly, if it's relevant to the college (this is the college intro so it should be relevant). I just think that went a little overboard, we should probably use a sentence in between.
• Museums: This is where I disagree strongest, and a compromise is not listing all of them. Imperial is not the museums around it. That's a fact. There is no organisational association, nor has there been. However, I agree with you that for the area and the history of Imperial, the museums have played an important role in the image of Imperial. Hence, why I agree there should be mention of the museums. My two issues are as follows:
  • This article is about Imperial, listing out the entirety of all of the museums is unhelpful. Imperial is not the museums, and listing them all here could imply to readers they are affiliated. WP:BOOSTERism by association is one of the points that has been brought up at WT:HED right now; I don't think it's sensible to have here. I don't think it's relevant to list every single museum to try and convey the history of the area. The V&A probably shouldn't mention Imperial in the intro to be honest, they have little to do with each other, as they're in very different fields.
  • Listing all of them out reads bad, it's an excessive list.

Hence, the compromise would be to list some of them, grouping the museums under numerous museums or something of that ilk. Please don't view my attempt at a compromise already as my viewpoint. I don't really think this mention should be here more than about three words: "area of culture" or something

• Why this need to say that it all began with the Great Exhibition. The area and colleges grew with it, but they have a history before they moved into the area, and some of their history precedes when it even occurred. Also, the idea for Imperial itself doesn't really hit until 1900s-ish (I think there was a 1904 report but I could be mistaken). I don't get this need for half-truths, this is an encycolpædia article. Imperial did grow out of the Great Exhibition? yes. Imperial was thought up during the Great Exhibition? it certainly doesn't look like it. The inspiration for the college comes from it? No, it comes from the Germans, or possibly it does so maybe yes, or no it's from the former colleges. What you may see as nice wording doesn't mean a need to go WP:SYNTHesising the facts.
• No, I don't think field station or research station or whatever should be removed, it was again the excessive wording. The underlying idea of clarifying it a little seemed sensible.
• That's fine and fair point about the joining of the University. It just seemed strange to remove it whilst adding a lot of inconsequential information.

If you need to see how this would translate into text, here it goes:

“ <!—— Topline intro ——>

Imperial College London (legally Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine) is a public research university in London. Founded by Royal Charter in 1907 out of three scientific and technical colleges dating back to 1845, the college focuses exclusively on science, technology, medicine and business.

<!—— History. Note the following is an attempt to introduce "husband of Queen Victoria". I'd be happier to return to the other phrasing of "With the foundation of ..., Imperial grew out of..." ——>

In 1845 the Royal College of Chemistry was founded with the support of Prince Albert, husband of Queen Victoria. It was the first in a series of Royal Colleges supported by the prince, which grew out from his vision for an area for culture built from (I don't think "the proceeds of" is necessary here, if I recall correctly the whole area was actually built out of the exhibition's gardens, and removing it simplifies the language without heading into inaccuracy, see old maps) the Great Exhibition of 1851, including the Royal Albert Hall, Imperial Institute and numerous museums. In 1907, Imperial College was established by Royal Charter from King Edward VII, merging the Royal College of Science, Royal School of Mines, and City and Guilds College. In 1988, the Imperial College School of Medicine was formed by the incorporation of St Mary's Hospital Medical School into the college. In 2004, Queen Elizabeth II opened the Imperial College Business School, and the college gained independence from the University of London on its centenary in 2007.

<!—— Campuses, organisation, and academics ——>

The college's main campus is located in South Kensington, and it has an innovation campus in White City, an ecology field station at Silwood Park, and teaching hospitals throughout London. Imperial has an international community, with more than 59% of students from outside the UK and 140 countries represented on campus. The college and its predecessors have been the birthplace of penicillin, holography, and fibre optics.

”

References

If it's wording that I've changed from my previous proposals, you can take it that I'm indifferent between them if you don't like this. I've tried to incorporate the following of your changes:

• ecology field station
• removing 1908 from the University of London
• Your better phrasing for St Mary's
• Husband of Queen Victoria
• represented on campus

Mostly the rest of it is the earlier content there was already consensus around here just before we began arguing on structure (I thought we had a consensus on content so I don't know why this has started up) and that we wanted to change the way it was written, not what was written. Anyway, have a nice day! Shadowssettle_(talk) 09:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Shadowssettle, I was not trying to do a bold rewrite of the intro, but rather to incorporate the content and structure you proposed and finesse that. I understand that pasting the intro there appeared boldly, and bold edits may have caused some defensiveness. I hope you can be open to me liking the museums, I have been trying to be open to all your content and suggestions. There are several editors on the article, and while some things I may or may not disagree with content wise, I realize are important to other editors, so I include them regardless if I think a word or two is necessary, which I doubt matters to you honestly if a museum is listed or not or is written numerous museums.   I do think you were getting a little defensive, and it was because you thought I did a bold rewrite. Honestly, I was just trying to incorporate your proposed inclusions, as I realize it is everyone's article, regardless if I liked all the proposed changes or not. For me I was trying to compromise to include yours and hope you can do the same. Let's give it a week and hopefully we can cool off, and be constructive again. I guess the coronavirus is getting to all of us being stuck indoors too much. Have a nice week!    Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Mikecurry1 (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I am happy to take you at face value about the bold edit, although that has not been a point of contention since, well, the edit, and it's not something I've had a problem with, the WP:BRD cycle exists for a reason. My issue is purely with content, and talking about my motives, such as being defensive, when I've I've repeatedly address the content, isn't going to get us anywhere. I'm glad you like the museums. They're good museums.^{[citation needed]} I like them too.^{[POV – discuss]} However, this is an article about Imperial College London, not the neighbouring museums, so whether or not you like them is not the point (I know, I know, that wasn't your point). Just saying WP:ILIKEIT isn't really sufficient, it would be helpful to argue your case on its merits, as I will try to continue to do, as I have concerns over the inclusion of an entire list of museums:

• Do the museums share a common heritage with Imperial? Partly, yes
• Is the public image of Imperial associated with the area? Yes, and also it's physically there too! A brief description of the area would seem wholly appropriate
• Is Imperial directly associated with the museums? No, so they shouldn't receive excessive coverage, especially in the lead.
• Is including an entire list of museums necessary? No, it reads poorly (long lists) and doesn't cover the college. It turns this into an intro for an article about the area
• Could adding a list of non-associated museums risk WP:BOOSTERism by association? I would say yes

This is not me being defensive: as I have pointed out there are strong reasons for the non-inclusion of an entire list of museums in the lead section. Rather than make statements regarding my motives, I would imagine it more productive to discuss the actual points of contention. I also find it strange to say I'm not open to compromise, one because the inclusion of any local institutions is not what I think should be there, yet I have already included a condensed list knowing from previous discussions that you wanted some in and trying to avoid this whole problem by heading to where the consensus would've eventually reached. As you also know, on WT:HED, despite my continued belief that no prestige-like statements should be present in any university article, I am actively working towards a compromise idea to try and form a consensus. (you're thoughts on the latest idea for a final consensus would be welcomed by the way!)

This is a symptom of what had always been one of my main concerns with the lead, that it focused far too much on not Imperial for the introduction to Imperial. It was originally far worse, discussing the history, not just the presence, of mostly unassociated (apart from by name and site, they don't share buildings as all but Queen's Tower was knocked down, and Imperial didn't inherit any finances or institutions, or culture, or people, or anything) Imperial Institute, which has been limited to just a comment which makes perfect sense. This is not an article about Albertopolis. (you might want to help with that article if you're interested, it could do with a lot of work as it looks neglected). The intro here shouldn't be an intro for other things. Arguing that a reader might want that listed is exactly the kind of argument which works well in an article section about the area. It seems far less appropriate for Wikipedia's introduction to the actual topic of Imperial. It has often seemed like the intro has been written from the perspective that Imperial was the college amongst the museums. Whilst this is true, it's also not what Imperial is, it is a research institution with its own history and its own relevant facts.

Let's take Stanford University, and the fact is is part of the Silicon Valley area:

• Is the fact Stanford is part of the area worth mentioning? Yes, even more so that Imperial and the museums since many of those companies were started by Stanford alum, and it acts as the academic heart of the industry along with UC Berkeley
• Is it worth mentioning this is an area full of tech companies Probably, as above
• Is it worth listing a couple of them Maybe, if they have a strong association to Stanford and are well known Note that the article uses numerous companies as well, so actually it doesn't even go this far.
• Is it worth listing all of them No. That would be ridiculous

Listing all of the insititutions in the area seems equally silly. Hence the inclusion of the Imperial Institute which is where the college's name probably arose, and the inclusion of the Royal Albert Hall, where the college holds its ceremonies such as commemoration day. The rest can safely be listed under numerous museums, much like Stanford.

On a less contentious note, I would be happy to leave this for a week, being very much of the mind that WP:THEREISNODEADLINE. Feel free, however to continue this discussion if you wish too! Shadowssettle_(talk) 16:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, lets give it a week to cool off - it got unnescessarily hot when I posted the proposed new structure to the webpage and tried to finesse the language from your edit. Hopefully in a week we can look at it with fresh eyes again, and find an intro we all like that meets both of our interests. Then we can be constructive again. Mikecurry1 (talk)

Recommencing discussion

Hi Shadowssettle, its been some time so I think we can be constructive again in writing as it got to heated. I think we were both defensive to each others ideas previously and not very open at the time. Hopefully we can be open to each others ideas. Is it possible to know what your interests are for the introduction? Previously you mentioned a few things you cared about, "Personally I'm fine with how the intro is in general, but I would say the college's focus of study, international diversity and new campus are all relevant facts, whose inclusion might be beneficial." You also mentioned "puffery", and "flow" previously. Are those your primary interests for the intro? If not, please inform me where i am off in understanding your primary interests. I am trying to learn your interests so that way we can know what each other care about in the intro and do our best for the intro to include both of our interests, and let go of what might not matter to us as much. One of my primary interests was always to describe the cultural area around Imperial. It was for the similar reason that I had proposed including photos that showed the context of imperial around the college (such as the context around the main entrance photo). For me that was part of the experience that was imperial of the culture around the college from its area (which others such as mit also described here https://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-expands-multi-departmental-partnership-imperial-college-london-0222), so i hope you can understand and be open to that.) Without stating positions, it would be good to understand your interests, so I can do my best to meet them, and we can make an intro that we all like. Hopefully then we can let go of things that do not really matter to us as much (about what not to include and we can rather focus on what your interests are for the intro). Is it possible to learn what your interests are for the intro so i can understand better? I think we were discussing new paragraph structures with 4 paragraphs, and it was previously agreed upon on the talk page to have a 3 paragraph structure as proposed and preffered by aloneinthewild. A lot of changes were made without discussion since such as a change to a 2 paragraph structure. It makes sense why the major rankings were removed for puffery so it was collapsed down temporarily to 2 paragraphs. As we are both calm now hopefully we can be open to each others ideas and interests so we find a collaborative intro we all like. I think the photos were greatly improved since we discussed them and collaborated to choose good ones. I can do my best to be open to what you want too, and hopefully by listing what are both of our interests we can create something even better than what is there right now, and we will not be so defensive to each other. I definitely understand and can agree with the interests to include college focus of study, international diversity, new campus, reduce puffery, and improve flow. Are those your key interests, if not please let me know - so I can do my best to include them and we can create an intro with collarboration and consensus. (also i do not check this as often anymore so it may take me some time to respond). Mikecurry1 (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry for messing up your message but it was going to get annoying responding to the entire section rather than a new subsection, so I added a subheading. Feel free to reformat if you feel that was presumptuous.

I don't particularly have as much time available for this either, so no worries. I am once again going to address your concerns one at a time to make this more manageable:

1. One of my primary interests was always to describe the cultural area around Imperial.

This is the same concern that I think you felt got heated last time. I agree it is important to mention briefly the area around Imperial, but I do not see the need for any more mention than what is currently there. As per previous discussion:

“ This is a symptom of what had always been one of my main concerns with the lead, that it focused far too much on not Imperial for the introduction to Imperial. It was originally far worse, discussing the history, not just the presence, of mostly unassociated (apart from by name and site, they don't share buildings [at] all but Queen's Tower was knocked down, and Imperial didn't inherit any finances or institutions, or culture, or people, or anything) Imperial Institute, which has been limited to just a comment which makes perfect sense. This is not an article about Albertopolis. (you might want to help with that article if you're interested, it could do with a lot of work as it looks neglected). The intro here shouldn't be an intro for other things. Arguing that a reader might want that listed is exactly the kind of argument which works well in an article section about the area. It seems far less appropriate for Wikipedia's introduction to the actual topic of Imperial. It has often seemed like the intro has been written from the perspective that Imperial was the college amongst the museums. Whilst this is true, it's also not what Imperial is, it is a research institution with its own history and its own relevant facts.

Let's take Stanford University, and the fact is is part of the Silicon Valley area:

• Is the fact Stanford is part of the area worth mentioning? Yes, even more so that Imperial and the museums since many of those companies were started by Stanford alum, and it acts as the academic heart of the industry along with UC Berkeley
• Is it worth mentioning this is an area full of tech companies Probably, as above
• Is it worth listing a couple of them Maybe, if they have a strong association to Stanford and are well known Note that the article uses numerous companies as well, so actually it doesn't even go this far.
• Is it worth listing all of them No. That would be ridiculous

Listing all of the insititutions in the area seems equally silly. Hence the inclusion of the Imperial Institute which is where the college's name (probably) arose, and the inclusion of the Royal Albert Hall, where the college holds its ceremonies such as commemoration day. The rest can safely be listed under numerous museums, much like Stanford.

”

2. It was for the similar reason that I had proposed including photos that showed the context of imperial around the college (such as the context around the main entrance photo)

If you have a good-quality image of the main entrance which you feel better portrays its context feel free to switch. I think the image that was there before also showing Exhibition Road was great, if not better. However, adding random images about things which aren't Imperial, when there's stuff that is Imperial doesn't make that much sense. Show me a good-quality major university article which has pictures of neighbouring non-affiliated institutions instead of university(-run) institutions.

3. It makes sense why the major rankings were removed for puffery so it was collapsed down temporarily to 2 paragraphs.

This was part of an earlier RfC, I don't know what sucessive RfCs concluded, as Wikipedia's coverage still reads patchy. If new RfCs changed their conclusion would definitely require updating content to match those RfCs.

Overall, my thoughts are that I'm interested in seeing what changes you're specifically suggesting, rather than in the abstract, so we can discuss the issues that arise with them. I'm quite comfortable with the current layout, but very open to working towards a new consensus involving major positive changes.

I feel like this discussion is, however, circular, since it results in you expressing your desire to include more information about Albertopolis/South Kensington straight in the lead without actually addressing the concerns about how relevant or non-standard such a heavy focus would be. @Aloneinthewild and Robminchin: I think we'd both agree your input would be most welcome. Shadowssettle _{Need a word?} 11:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Shadowssettle:, Sorry for the delay in my response, I have been busy too now. I liked your response and feel we made progress on that. I liked what you had to say. Basically this was a rewrite of the intro, and I am fine with that. Let us not get stuck on any position, which will lead to circular arguing and defensiveness, but rather focus on both of our key interests for the intro so we have an intro we both like.

Perhaps, we can both state our interests so we can do our best to meet them for both of us:

In 2018, a section was discussed on the talk page Intro Changes you laid out some of your key interests for the intro at the time including information about:

1) the college's focus of study,

2) international diversity

3) having 3 paragraphs over 2

4) including something about the White City Campus

I think you may also have some interests in the following:

5) reducing puffery,

6) having top line information about imperial (such as a statement before the first paragraph).

7) not having excessive information about albertopolis (though prince albert you think is important to include historically).

8) quality photos (with consensus)

You also mentioned you were personally fine with how the intro was in general.

Are these your main interests for the intro? Knowing if these are your main interests it is easier to work on it together.

Also you agreed with aloneinthewild at the time where he wrote he would prefer 3 paragraphs over 2. Aloneinthewild had made this paragraph format for the intro: para1: Intro and history, para2:Campuses and organisation, para3: Academic profile/famous alumni

I can agree with your main interests and hopefully we can do our best to meet both of our interests:

My interests were to have information about:

1) information about the royalty related to its history (which i think is important historically)

2) some information about the immediate area around imperial (which i think makes for a college experience in a busy city like london, but we may find a way to work for both of us).

3) something about imperial and entrepreneurship as it is a very entrepreneural university (i think this was removed because we were removing rankings). We can probably find a way to say this without any puffery.

4) improved information about alumni (sentence that was in the third paragraph)

5) good grammar and flow

I can agree with your interests and also agree with aloneinthewilds interests.

Can you just comment on if these are your interests without arguing for or against a specific position? Perhaps we can find a way to improve the intro to meet all our interests so we have an intro we both like. Without engaging in specific positions, does this sound reasonable to you? Can you comment if these are your main interests for the intro, so I can do my best to meet them as we propose suggestions. Mikecurry1 (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

As I said previously, I feel like arguing over ideals and ideas without seeing what each of us is trying to suggest isn't going to get anywhere: you'll feel I'm ignoring what you want to change and I'll feel that you're not listening to why that change is problematic. I'm not particularly free at the moment, but it might be helpful if you posted here the updated text for your ideal introduction, and explain each of your changes here. I'm not trying to censor or control what your write: no one has that power so of course you are free to change the article, but the editing process will probably end up with reversions, or I'll make changes you'll want to revert, and, in order to avoid an edit war, we'll end up back here on the talk page as has always happened, so we might as well show what we would write here anyway. Some of the points you've made seem reasonable, some seem to rehash old discussions, but maybe if they're shown in context it'll be clearer where there is agreement. Shadowssettle _{Need a word?} 10:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Shadowssettle:, sorry i made a mistake above. What was written above was meant for your name being tagged, so i was trying to understand your interests based on what you said before. Please re-read what i wrote above. I had corrected the tagging typo so it may make more sense now. I will assume these are your interests for the introduction from what you previously said and try to go from there then. The reason for understanding your interests rather than positions is because there might be more than one way to meet both of our interests positionally for the intro. I think the intro never gained a consensus when it was re-written for major changes, so the last consensus for the intro was for major changes to the intro was from 2018 in a section titled intro changes when we were disucssing it with aloneinthewild and found something we all agreed on. You gave several proposed wording versions in 2018 for the intro:

"So, keeping the introduction to what we can agree on, and what facts we do have, I'd give the following suggestion, keeping as much to the current one as possible:

Imperial College London (officially Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine)[1] is a public research university located in London, United Kingdom. Its founder, Prince Albert, envisioned a cultural area composed of the Victoria and Albert Museum, Natural History Museum, Royal Albert Hall, Imperial Institute, and several royal colleges. His wife, Queen Victoria, laid the foundation stone for the Imperial Institute in 1888. In 1907, the college was granted a formed by royal charter from the Royal College of Science and the Royal School of Mines, with the City and Guilds College joining in 1910.[2] It was formed as part of the University of London, before leaving which it left a century later. In 1988, the Imperial College School of Medicine was formed through a merger with St Mary's Hospital Medical School. In 2004, Queen Elizabeth II opened the Imperial College Business School.

I have italicised additions and struck deletions

Please could you read the proposal in the context of the facts I have given, and provide the reasons you don't like it (no hard feelings on my side, I'm already expecting problems with it though), maybe provide your own proposal I'll find problems with? (I'm not happy with how the UoL bit reads in the proposal, but rewording it might change the proposal too drastically, any suggestions?) Also feel free to provide sources for what you have said, and slay what I believe to be facts as they ride on their steed. Shadowssettle(talk) 23:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)"

It was updated to this a drop below in your proposal:

Imperial College London (officially Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine)[1] is a public research university located in London, United Kingdom. In 1851, its founder, Prince Albert, began building his vision for a cultural area composed of the Victoria and Albert Museum, Natural History Museum, Royal Albert Hall, Royal Colleges, and the Imperial Institute. His wife, Queen Victoria, laid the foundation stone for the Imperial Institute in 1888. In 1907, the college was granted a Royal Charter, merging the Royal School of Mines, Royal College of Science, and City and Guilds College.[2] The Imperial College School of Medicine was formed through a merger with St Mary's Hospital Medical School in 1988, and in 2004, Queen Elizabeth II opened the Imperial College Business School.

There were several other similar proposals you gave. Perhaps, if your interest is not having excessive albertopolis information, and my interest was describing the immediate surroundings around the college, we can remove the part in the current intro about the "imperial institute" and just leave "Victoria and Albert Museum", "Natural History Museum" instead of the "Imperial Institute" in the current sentence on the page. I think that would be a good proposal. It seemed several of your proposals previously had museums in them you liked, so maybe that is a good solution. It is also not extensive as it does not go into all the museums or albertopolis information. i think there are some other things to improve too, such as we can discuss improving something about imperial being more entreprenuerial as a university, which was in the intro before too, but i understand and agree with removing major rankings to remove boosterism. Is this minor change acceptable? I am trying to meet both our interests (yours not excessive albertopolis) (and mine to have information about the school immediate surroundings which i think make the college experience - compared to being at home in corona) in a way that can work positionally for us both. Hopefully that is something we both like positionally, as it is from what you had proposed before.Mikecurry1 (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I would like to see a bit more detail in the opening, possibly with a paragraph break before hitting the detailed history which comes across as a bit of a non sequitur at the moment, e.g.:

"Imperial College London (legally Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine) is a public research university in London with its main campus in South Kensington and a second campus in White City. It was established in 1907 and was part of the University of London from 1908 until 2007, when it became an independent university."

Then, having given the basic facts about the college, give the history of its development (which, while important, isn't in the same category of basic facts about the institution) as a second paragraph.

I would like to see some clarity about "Royal Colleges". Capitalised like this out almost always refers to the medical royal colleges, and only one of the three institutions that were merged to form Imperial was actually called a royal college – the natural reading of the proposed wording is that Albert wanted to establish the medical royal colleges in the area. Referring to these institutions as "technical and scientific institutions", or some such wording, would be far clearer and more accurate. I'm also not sure that referring to Prince Albert as "its founder" can be justified sufficiently for our to be stated prominently in the lead. There is an argument that Imperial grew out of his vision and thus he is its founder, but in a very real sense he died many years before Imperial was founded and did not actually found the college. Like UCL's similar claim to Bentham as its spiritual founder, this needs to be wrapped around with far more discussion than is appropriate for the lead. The current "grew out of Prince Albert's vision" is better from this point of view (I think I would personally prefer "had its origins in Prince Albert's vision"). Robminchin (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Robminchin: This all seems quite reasonable, but I'm not sure how it would look. I am a little concerned about not using the term Royal College, as that is the generally used term, but somehow clarifying this better makes sense. Unless Mikecurry1 you have some concerns about it? (consensus is good) Shadowssettle _{Need a word?} 13:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mikecurry1: I'll address your changes individually so this isn't a wall of text:

1. Imperial College London (officially Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine)[1] is a public research university located in London, United Kingdom.

   Officially has had previous contention around Wikipedia articles. I prefer it, but the project-wide consensus seems to be for the term "legally". Also, is there any advantage to stating United Kingdom, this seems pretty obvious—I know there are other Londons, but in general I'm pretty sure there's a WP:MOS guideline about avoiding stating this. (if I'm wrong, I don't mind, but I think there is?) It's interesting to note Trafalgar Square doesn't state the UK but University College London does...

2. Its founder, Prince Albert, envisioned a cultural area composed of

   This is tenuous, he didn't invision the specific museums so much as the area. Robminchin makes the point well, we can't say he did things he didn't do.

3. a cultural area composed of the Victoria and Albert Museum, Natural History Museum,

   We end up going around in circles on this point. I've yet to see anything convincing address my previous concerns on this matter (see quoted text in my first response in this new subsection). Could you please point out where you've addressed these concerns apart from saying you want it?

4. His wife, Queen Victoria, laid the foundation stone for the Imperial Institute in 1888.

   This was, again, part of a previous edit discussion. It's too much detail about something which is not Imperial for a first paragraph or even the lead in general

The rest is fine by me, but other editors wanted it broken into two sentences. Sorry if this feels like I'm attacking most of your changes. It's just that, from my perspective, you keep putting in the same changes, they keep having the same problems, and you keep suggesting them again. Shadowssettle _{Need a word?} 13:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Shadowssettle: Sorry for the confusion, I was trying to show your proposed wording of the 1st paragraph of the intro from 2018, not mine. Yes, it does feel like you could be slightly more open of what I write. I do feel like my proposed changes are being attacked sometimes, as I was just trying to show your proposed wording in 2018. Probably, I was too critical previously of what you wrote, so it made you feel you should be critical too. I apologize for that. I was not trying to proposing changing the queen victoria sentence here, etc, i was just trying to say maybe we can use a few more words from shaddowsettles several versions of his 2018 proposal for this sentence that we had a 3-way agreement with aloneinthewild and all agreed on. I was noting that it seemed your interests was removing excessive Albertopolis information, and my interest was on showing the college surrounding environment as I think it is an important part of a college experience in a big city. So my proposal was to keep the wording as it is in the CURRENT 1st paragraph (not rewrite the intro from 2018), and use similar wording to your proposal in 2018, we had a 3-way agreement on with aloneinthewild that you liked from your proposed sentences, which included "Victoria and Albert Museum, Natural History Museum and remove "Imperial Institute" and "numerous museums." That way we are removing information about albertopolis - a point to you (in your interest of not having excessive albertopolis info), and having information about the college surrounding environment which is a part of many people's college expreience as well as historically relevent - a point to me. We had agreed on more information within your proposed wording sentences in 2018, so I hope that is agreeable. I was saying to keep the intro 1st paragarph as it is currently in 2021 and just change those few words, per several of your 2018 wording proposals (the last time we discussed this where they were included). The proposed change would therefore be from this, "Imperial grew out of Prince Albert's vision of an area for culture, including the Royal Albert Hall, Imperial Institute, numerous museums, and the Royal Colleges that would go on to form the college." to this ""Imperial grew out of Prince Albert's vision of an area for culture, including the Royal Albert Hall, Victoria & Albert Museum, Natural History Museum, and the Royal Colleges that would go on to form the college." I do not think that is excessive information about albertopolis then, so it softens the sentence a lot more in a point to you. By removing the imperial institute part it softens the albertopolis part a lot - a point to you. The sentence would be more clear too. Then we can talk about other changes if that is acceptable to you - as it was in your 2018 proposed wording of that sentence several times that you also liked. Hopefully you can be open to that as a good compromise to meet both our interests, as it is something you proposed previously. I think if we can not get stuck on positions, and be open to meeting each others interests, it will make our editing lives much easier and more enjoyable. We should do our best to assume good faith in each other. Any excess criticism earlier was probably my mistake and I apologize for that. Mikecurry1 (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I don't and haven't felt attacked by your comments or suggestions; my responses are purely intended to try and address problems and it's unfortunate they're coming across stronger than that, none of them should be personal? Again, if you have a problem with any of my suggestions feel free to critique the content as much as you feel is necessary. That intro does seem to be one I wrote: it's not great and definitely worse than the current one. Could you put together the whole intro you'd like to see, and actually address the concern about discussion of specific museums from my point earlier, as I'm still failing to see your justification apart from that you like it. Finding other university articles which do a similar thing, or maybe introducing it later in the lead might work? Sorry if this reply isn't particularly productive, I'm not free at all right now so can't help out too much. One last point, Imperial inherited a lot of its land and some property (Queen's Tower) from the Imperial Institute, so it seems sensible to at least give it a mention. I don't see how individual museums relate to the college in a way anywhere near as crucial to its history? Also, some WP:OR: the surrounding museums are very much not part of the Imperial experience as you suggest; they're mostly for tourists and families, and it's quite jarring to see them put so prominently when the college isn't related to them. What I do agree is that the college is situated in such an area does relate to its history and directly impacts the perception of the college, hence numerous museums is definitely warranted (as a lower bound, you suggest more specificity). Shadowssettle _{Need a word?} 13:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes @Robminchin:, I glanced over and missed the paragraph above this and I agree with your points, regarding Royal Colleges being capitalized, technical and scientific institutions", or some such wording being used also would be far clearer and more accurate as well as useful (perhaps in the second paragraph describing the focus on only four subjects for the school), and also prefer the current intro wording for "grew out of the vision", which is clearer then from 2018, "envisioned a cultural area composed of".Mikecurry1 (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I just fixed the second sentence, which did not include my thoughts. Thank you for leaving that. I left the rest of the intro. The vision to form imperial was important from my opinion, and Imperial still has many connections with the surrounding institutions. Thank you for leaving my thought.Mikecurry1 (talk)