Talk:Imperial College London/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Fleming

Someone keeps removing references to Alexander Fleming. Fleming studied at St Mary's Medical School, which was not part of Imperial at the time that he studied but has since been merged with it. Thus he is an alumnus of Imperial. The medical building is named after him, for goodness sake!

On the contrary, if that is his only link with Imperial, then he is not an alumnus of Imperial. The fact that the SAF building is named after him is irrelevant.. Stalin wasn't born in Stalingrad. If you wanted to say "He is an alumnus of St Mary's which merged with Imperial in ..." that would be fair enough. Zargulon 10:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
By the way, what do you have against the sentence The college's official title is Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, which it used in public relations up to 2002.? Zargulon 10:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Can we please sort this out here before you go on to edit the list of alumni page.. Zargulon 10:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course it makes him an alumnus of Imperial. He went to St Mary's, St Mary's is part of Imperial. Where is the argument here? As for the statement about the full name, it is pointless and if it should be in the article for some minor interest then it certainly doesn't belong in the opening paragraph. I mean, who cares what the full name is? The opening paragraph should simply give an overview of the essential information.

I moved the statement about the name out of the introduction as per your request. I still disagree over the definition of an alumnus - I think it has to refer to the institution in its state when they attended it, regardless of what happened afterwards. For instance, if somone went to Hogwarts college, and afterwards Hogwarts college became defunct and completely ceased to exist, would that make them not an alumnus of anywhere? It is also certainly true that if you asked Fleming during his lifetime if he was an alumnus of Imperial (before the merger) he would have denied it, and said he was an alumnus of St Mary's.. surely the way that he defined himself should take precedence, rather than something that happened 33 years after he died. Zargulon 12:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

By your logic, neither HG Wells nor TH Huxley would have been alumni, as they both studied at the Royal College of Science. In fact, I think HG Wells went when it was still called The Normal School of Science. So, you've left us with... Brian May. You also forget that St Mary's no longer exists as an entity, it is simply one campus of the Imperial College School of Medicine.

I didn't know about Wells and Huxley.. I confirm that, knowing this, I wouldn't describe them as alumni of Imperial College. I am implementing a solution, tell me if it's agreeable. St Mary's certainly still exists as an entity, but, I agree, not as an independent academic institution, I'm not sure where I suggested it did. Zargulon 12:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

This is silly. These absorbed institutions are Imperial. The situation is rather unusual, but certainly not unprecedented. Manchester University, for example, was only created in 2004 on the merger of the Victoria University of Manchester and UMIST. Their page rightly lists all former alumni of these two institutions as alumni of the newly created Manchester Uni. This is as it should be. They studied at what is now called Manchester, what does it matter what it was called when they went? The same applies here. These former institutions still exist as Imperial. Essentially, it amounts to a name change. My point about St Mary's is that it is Imperial.

I take your point. So is the current status of the pages acceptable, as a compromise? Zargulon 13:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

No.

You guys really need to get IDs and sign your edits. Zargulon 21:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

clubs and societies

There were way too many of these on the main page, so many have been deleted. A large list on the ICU wikipedia page would be more appropriate.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.156.220.38 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

University ratings

(I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.)

There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#University ratings. Timrollpickering 00:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

'prestigious'

Who's the jealous person who keeps removing 'prestigious' from the opening sentence? I'm only going to keep adding it in!

It's not me, but the word makes it seem like the school is compensating for something. If you look at Harvard's page, for example, you find no mention of its international repute in the initial descriptor. Let the place stand on its own merits, not by using hollow words that don't tell the truth of the matter! OPen2737 20:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The difference with Harvard is that everyone knows its prestigious.

ps does anyone have a source for the 4th ranking as ive no idea how to add it, and also for the 'only one to have displaced oxbridge'?

That's my point. Being prestigious means that a broad sample of individuals have a high opinion of an institution. Everyone doesn't "know that Harvard is prestigious." Everyone does, however, know that it is very good. An institution may be very good, as I'm sure is the case with Imperial College, but if people don't know it then it is not prestigious. Still, if you want to revert the article, go ahead. I don't live in the UK, so it could be locally renowned without my knowledge.OPen2737 23:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Question really should be: "where's your source for calling it prestigious?". Unless someone independent of the University and reliable has called the University prestigious, then the word should be removed. Whether it is correct is unimportant if it cannot be verified. GDallimore (Talk) 14:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. I am with you Gdallimore- and I go to Imperial.

Exchange programs

I was just wondering... does anyone know anything about imperial's exchange or study abroad programs? I would like to learn more about them. If anyone has knowledge in this area, please tell me, thanks.

Try typing exchange into the search engine on its website. You'll find this summary. --Duncan 21:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Officially"

Nothing particularly wrong with it I suppose, but it makes it sound like "Imperial Colelge London" is the unofficial name, rather than what is (as mentioned0 the day-to-day usage. "Formally" was probably better, in that it is only in formal contexts that the full name is used, but I'm not going ot get hung up on it. David Underdown 10:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it either! My problem was that it implied that "Imperial College London" was merely shorthand. Technically, it is the unofficial name; the royal charter says the full, legal name. Kevin Judson 11:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
So all that signage round campus is "unofficial" ;) David Underdown 11:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Webometric ranking

I don't think that this is significant enough to go in the lead section (and remember that the lead should be a summary of the rest of the article). Also the interpretation given, that the low ranking is down to the mix of imperial.ac.uk and ic.ac.uk sites doesn't seem to be specifically mentioned in the cited source, making it personal interpretation. David Underdown 21:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

felix

I've heard that felix has more frequent releases than other student union papers in the uk and has a more professional touch. I'm not sure if it's true but if it is surely it warrants a mention! Anyone have supporting or counter claims? Rm uk 17:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it has won national awards before... --ValerioC 13:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Felix looks more professional than any other student newspaper I've seen, but I haven't seen many (the typesetting and layout is as good as in The Times). It's published every Friday during term time.
There's also I, Science http://www.union.ic.ac.uk/media/iscience/ , the Union's science magazine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.151.120 (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

League Tables

"Imperial is consistently ranked in the top four in the country for academic prowess by newspaper league tables, often above Oxford University." Imperial has 14 not 15 Nobel winners and 2 not 1 Field medalists

There are many edit changes being made to this line of text (usually from anonymous IP addresses). Is there something we can come up with that will make most people happy? I would suggest "sometimes above", but maybe we should remove the reference to Oxford completely?--Alexd 22:44, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

'frequently above'/'occasionally above' maybe? --Vamp:Willow
I say we remove the reference to Oxford altogether. It is not the role of Wikipedia to compare UK institutions of Higher Education. Especially as we(Imperial) are clearly so much better...

"Imperial's reputation for unchallenged research excellence in the life and physical sciences is second to none and is frequently ahead of Oxford and Cambridge Universities in this arena." This is hardly objective. It seems to me that the page is mostly being edited by Imperial students past or present, and that we seem to be in danger of disappearing up our collective arse. I almost suspect Sir Richard to have had a hand in this page.

Well he's a GSK buisness tycoon goon isn't he, I wouldn't be suprised.

    • UPDATE**

Hi guys, ive just finished updating all the league positions for the The Times and THES. I couldnt find sources for some of them, but ive only written in positions for ones im sure of. If anyone can fill in the citations then feel free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.40.194 (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

CHE Ranking

Hi guys, I'd suggest including this ranking [1] in your reputation section. It is probably the soundest in view of methodology...and Imperial is top. BTW: CHE stands for Centre for Higher Education Development and is actually the Bertelsmann Foundation. 88.66.14.156 (talk) 14:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

LSE article

Hi there, since LSE - as the other flagship specialist institution of London has a rather long and detailed article, does anyone else think, it might be worthwhile to extend the IC article to a similar extent? --90.194.165.60 (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed this article should be longer. Suggest use of this college history page as a reference for expansion: http://www.ic.ac.uk/centenary/flash/timeline/timeline_flash.shtml Unusual Cheese (talk) 13:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Tizard Hall merge discussion

I move to redirect Tizard Hall, a campus dorm, to this article. I probably should have boldly redirected this, but being that I'm not familiar with this college perhaps it has a notable history. I haven't been able to find any information to show that this subject is notable apart from the college as a whole, so until that gets shown I think it should be redirected here. ThemFromSpace 02:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Rankings

Hello, for further understanding of the Jiao Tong rankings, it would be worthwhile to include the older rankings (back to 2003, where IC was number 17). See http://www.arwu.org/ --87.163.122.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC).

Admissions

Why has someone deleted all the new 2010 offers that i had put up???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.40.194 (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Is ti really information you'd expect to find in an encyclopaedia? See WP:NOT, people should be looking at Imperial's own website for that information, it's not what Wikipedia is for. David Underdown (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I take objection to the line: "In addition, the university currently has the highest offer for any degree in the whole country, Mathematics and Computer Science requiring A*A*A in 2010." == Is achieving A*A*A with the A*s in Further Maths really a "higher" offer than the standard offer for the Cambridge Mathematics Tripos, which is A*AA at A-Level plus a 1,1 in STEP II and III? This is certainly disputable and, unless anyone can convince me otherwise, I shall remove this sentence. Joanfi (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed 'M.I.T' text

I've removed this text 'It is known in America as "The M.I.T. of Britain".' because it is uncited and sounds a bit fishy to me. Grim23★ 00:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

UK rankings

Whose idea was it to transpose the UK rankings table so that the papers run along the top and the years down the side. It was dumb idea! It looks untidy now as the columns have been needlessly widened and it is not consistent with the world rankings or the majority of other rankings tables. Please consider reversion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.216.132 (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it was retarded. Revised to the traditional format. Matt641 (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Specialisation reordering

Re-ordering of college specialisations to science, engineering, medicine and business - this is in-line with the phrasing of the 2010-14 College Strategy. In addition, it is also a more accurate reflection of the nature of the activities that take place within the college. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucesasf (talk • contribs) 09:35, 28 June 2011

WP does not care how the University would like to see the specialisations ordered. In order to give a neutral point of view alphabetical is best. Mtking (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, alpha-order is the most neutral approach in this case. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
You should not be striving for neutrality, you should be striving for accuracy. The fact remains that the Business School represents a comparatively small proportion of the College's activities. As an aside, it should also be mentioned that if you care to revert to the original ordering, perhaps you'd also care to correct the accompanying typo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucesasf (talk • contribs) 23:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, accurate above neutral. 84.217.234.50 (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Secession from the University of London

It was announced on October 5th, 2006, that the University of London had accepted Imperial's request to secede from the University and become a fully independent institution, see http://www.london.ac.uk/495.html, effective from July 2007, the College's centenary.

Surely this deserves a better mention in the article.

Formal departure is still something for the futre. Today we had to revert a major edit to University of London by someone who thought Imperial had already left. Let's not run ahead of events. --Duncan 21:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's ancient history now, and the article still has almost nothing to say about it. Secession from UoL is an extremely unusual event and deserves more coverage. --Ef80 (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Imperial College Halls of Residence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Time to close this. Merge done. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

This article has been tagged for notability for over two years, and I can't see anything to indicate an independent notability. Accordingly, propose merging into a section here, with a redirect. Rodhullandemu 22:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, although the content will need some editing, a straight cut and paste will leave the info messy and too long (there is already a Student housing section in this artcle). Rangoon11 (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2010 (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.

Request for dispute resolution

On 6 December, I added a section "Controversies about bullying of staff". It can be seen at [2] This section was well referenced and moderately worded, but it has been removed, presumably by Imperial Colleges PR staff. It seems to me unacceptable that the subject of an encyclopedia article can censor its contents. I therefore request that this section be reinstated. David Colquhoun (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi David, I've restored the section for further discussion to take place here. I think this is a notable topic and given it is covered by reliable sources can be mentioned in the article. Unsure if the removal of the section was by Imperial as the IP trackback does not point to the university itself. Aloneinthewild (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Wow that was very quick. Thank you. I'm very intrigued that the IP doesn't track back to Imperial. Who else would want to change it? I guess it can be done from a phone or home computer easily enough. I seem to be the only person here who isn't anonymous.

David Colquhoun (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC) Kept

Kept

Organization of the lead

I suggest that the lead ought to follow the flow of the whole article since it's a general summary: intro.& history --> organization & admin. --> academic profile (including research) & student life --> notable alumni. Further, the info. of rankings and associations are currently given undue weight so they ought to be more concise. Biomedicinal (Contact) 09:06, 31 December 2014‎ (UTC)

I tried incorporating your comments and changes, but I think organization in this new format is less relevant than the previous organization structure. For example notable alumni is not a whole paragraph in the introduction, other statistics are also important. I kept the notable alumni as the bottom section as you changed it in structure. That was a great point. Like others I think the rankings should be there, and do not understood why they are deemphasized. Many people have not heard of Imperial globally, and this is their first introduction to the school. What is it to separate Imperial from any other school in the world they are learning about for the first time. It is important to emphasize Imperial's importance.

I see your point but the lead ought to be a concise and precise summary of the article without any undue weight or booster, as suggested by the article guidelines. So, I tried to
1. generalize all those league tables and draw the conclusion of "top ten within the country" (see the ARWU & THE Reputation lists and the three national rankings);
2. remove those affiliations in exhaustive details which have already appeared elegantly in the template list nearby;
3. retain the info. of selectivity and research which also belong to the "academic profile" section where ranking isn't the sole composition;
4. follow the flow of the whole article, starting with history and ended with alumni;
Moreover, I personally avoid using "Imperial" all the time which, in my opinion, a bit clumsy to read through. It's true that the affiliation part can be either incorporated into the research section of the academic profile or the admin. section if they're research associations. But overall, it'll be clearer for the lead to follow the flow of the whole article. Biomedicinal (Contact) 05:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean by undue weight, that universities should not over emphasize their importance and that neutrality is very important to maintain. Yet according to the guidelines there is a difference between stating a neutral fact as being ranked 2nd in the world, which the guidelines says is very appropriate and putting excess weight through descriptive adjectives to inflate ones importance. The line 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 is factual as those are global rankings. It is also ranked 13th in the world by the recent US News and World Report. This is not an opinion. Showing the university ranking is what every university does, and is not undue importance. By hiding the rankings it is diminishing the truth, instead of showing it. The truth is Imperial has ranked 2nd globally in the QS, 9th in the THE, 13th in US News and World Reports in the world as an institution. Minimizing Imperial's importance by comparing it to only national universities is diminishing instead of acknowledging facts, and in my opinion is a lack of self esteem, which is required to acknowledge the factual good points in a university and in oneself. This can be done in a neutral tone. I kept the line that Imperial is one of the most selective university, which has less facts to correspond with the sentence then the sentence that was removed. I also think that is a very factual sentence, by the references though. Harvard universities first sentence says it is one of the most prestigious universities in the world. This is true too. Yet that is more an opinion than a fact about a global ranking. I think we need to have the positive self esteem/self regard to be able to acknowledge the importance of an institution, in a neutral and factual tone, instead of minimizing the importance by hiding facts. Imperial is a global institution. I am from the United States and chose to attend Imperial because of that, not because it was on a national league table. Most of the people here have never heard of Imperial. This is their introduction to a school for the first time. What separates it from Joe Bloe school no one has heard of too. It is important to acknowledge the facts of why Imperial got global straight A students to come from all over the world to attend. Therefore it is important to show the importance of a school either through its affiliations as other schools do in showing there affiliation to the Ivy league, etc. In every research article they first acknowledge the importance of an idea, theory, or background, before entering into what they are trying to discover. It is the same with the school. Many people have never heard of it, and factually this needs to be explained to the many people globally who have never heard of Imperial. Diminishing these facts is low self esteem and not appropriate to those from outside countries who have never heard of this school and use this page to learn about the institution people attended. I do think you made very many excellent points, including that the word Imperial was used to much, and this word should be kept away. I just do not understand the point of changing the structure of the introduction, when it is pretty strong, to something you like better. I switched the last paragraph to Academic Profile/Alumni you suggested. But it is a lot to change the whole introduction and not expect people to not like many of the changes. For example one of the sentences that was changed was basically three sentences in a run on sentence. I have been trying to implement more of your changes now and put them back in. I was still editing in the process too. I think you are right that it could be more concise, but the importance of the school for those who have never heard of it globally must be maintained too. Not only people who look at the national league tables go to Imperial, it also attracts a global student and faculty population.

Do you really think this sentence you wrote is worded better than the well worded sentence someone else wrote (not written by me):

Changed: Imperial is ranked among the top universities worldwide by QS where it is 2nd[17] and THE where it is 9th[18] in 2014/15. Original: 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.

The changed sentence has poor grammar. I did not write the original sentence, it is very strong. Why change a sentence written well? It is the exact same idea. The reason why the changed sentence has poor grammar is because acronyms are used, only one date is used, and the citations are mid sentence. It also does not separate out three ideas, they all flow together. The ideas are Imperial is ranked strongly worldwide. It is ranked strongly in the QS and THE rankings. The date follows the ranking awkwardly, making for one long run on sentence without its ideas separated.

I made the change to the sentence earlier you suggested too. Structurally for the final paragraph you begin with the most important idea typically. People also end with the most important idea too. The NY Times valuing graduates is not the most important idea and belongs in the middle somewhere. It is far more important about rankings or noble prize winners. This is thus how the paragraph is best to start and conclude . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.91.243 (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if I really made grammatical mistakes. Yet, to be accurate, it's QS and THE (Main) of the SAME YEAR (2014/15) that ranked ICL 2nd and 9th respectively, but not ARWU, THE (Reputation), or US News & World Report. My point is to make the lead concise and precise, thus generalizing all those league tables to draw the conclusion - no intentional comparison and yes it's a fact it's ranked like that. Rankings and affiliations may be signs of esteem but I think the school itself is far more important - if it's really "strong", it doesn't rely on external factors to "attract" international students or faculty. So, you consider "accuracy" (or "details") but what about all those rankings by subjects? Put them all there? On the Harvard page, all those opinions about prestige are generalized into a single statement instead of being listed separately to show what each media said. Not all the Ivies (same as all the "golden triangles" here) are named there either, which are quite irrelevant to the institution itself. I didn't prioritize the info. intentionally. I just though it's more consistent to read. Of course, this is open for discussion. Biomedicinal (Contact) 13:59, 6 February 2015

I took your suggestion and tried shortening it more to make it even more concise. Everyone makes grammatical mistakes me too. The reality is from an international perspective rankings indeed do draw in the top students and faculty. Here are two sources showing that: http://www.usnewsuniversityconnection.com/news/use-rankings-attract-top-faculty-students/ http://www.cornell.edu/strategicplan/objectives.cfm According to Cornell Universities strategic plan, " Excellent, highly ranked departments and faculty are crucial to attracting students." The fact is rankings really do draw a diverse section of international students, faculty, and jobs into the university, and while I am a student and not in the administration, I think it is best to draw the best possible people into the university for all our benefit. I understand that it might seem arrogant to you to list the ranking, but it is not. It just shows Imperial is a top tier to school. Others besides me have kept the rankings in there, and so I do not understand why take them out. I am a top international student and would never have heard of Imperial if not for the rankings, many people like me have never heard of the golden triangle abroad. We have only heard of Oxford and Cambridge in the United States. When I told two people about applying to Imperial from the United States from my top tier university they asked why apply there? Then I showed them the ranking and they said, yeah sounds like a good career move. The fact is many people outside of the UK have not heard of Imperial College and would consider it just another university or a 2nd or 3rd tier school, especially in America, because we have not heard of it globally. We have also not heard of the golden triangle. We have only heard of the ivy league. It is important for our careers when other people check out Imperial's Wikipedia that they have a reference point that Imperial is one of the best in the world. This puts it in perspective factually and without bias. Yes THE Reputation and US News also rank Imperial as one of the best universities in the world. US news ranks Imperial 13th in the world and 3rd in europe Above Yale and the University of Pennsylvania. THE Reputation also ranks Imperial 13th in the world. While there is no point to list every ranking or subject rankings, as this becomes excessive, people who have never heard of Imperial need to understand the universities impact on academics and the rankings are one way to explain that. I understand you do not care about the rankings, but why not leave them in for all the other people who do. For example even, UC Berkeley uses their rankings too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Berkeley. The rankings are less relevant for people in the UK who have heard of the Imperial and the golden triangle, but is important for attracting international collaboration globally for those who have never heard of Imperial. Maybe we can take out more of the university affiliations section you did not like to make it more concise. Maybe we can make it more concise and take out the lengthy affiliations section you do not like as a compromise? And leave the rankings in for the top international students, faculty, who view them as very valuable. I took out the list of schools in the introduction too as you were right that is not relevant to Imperial's description: Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, KCL in describing the golden triangle.

I don't deny the role of those rankings, to a certain extent, as measures of progression made by a given institution. Yet, they ought to be shortened and clear without exhaustive details in the lead, which is only the background of the article. As I wrote on the UCL talk page, we have lots of such measures nowadays: ARWU (main rankings), ARWU (alternative ranking), QS, THE (main rankings), THE (reputation rankings) & US News (global version), not to mention subject or regional rankings. It can be quite debatable on what to highlight or drop. I think it's enough for a reader to get the general idea of how Imperial is ranked since details are well retained in the corresponding section and most importantly the links within the citations provided (wikipedia isn't a collection of data). I think you may want to have a look on the MIT, Oxford & Michigan pages.
Biomedicinal (Contact) 17:32, 7 February 2015

I agree 100 percent with your last argument. I like how you started it, "I don't deny the role of those rankings, to a certain extent, as measures of progression made by a given institution. Yet, they ought to be shortened and clear without exhaustive details in the lead, which is only the background of the article." I agree 100 percent with what you wrote, and think we made major progress to mutually-agreeable terms. I think 1 sentence is fine to sum this up. I think the way that it was written by someone with excellent writing skills (not me) is great, "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." I think that fits your points of being short, with clear grammar. The sentence is also much better than what I could have written as the writer of the sentance has excellent verbal skills. Thank you for having this discussion with me, as we both think rankings have importance, and should be short and clear, maybe we can agree on this one sentence, and then leave the rest of the exhaustive subject ranking list for later? Thank you for having this discussion and for finding mutually-agreeable terms.

Necessity for subject rankings?

I'm not comfortable with the "Global Subject" subsection in the ranking part of the article. Is that necessary to give such undue weight to rankings (especially those European ranks)? Readers can find out more on the cited pages if they're willing to do so. Today, we have many disciplinary league tables with different classification and methodology so no need to list them all here. Simply leaving the overall ranks (beside those listed in the template) with relevant citations is well enough. Wikipedia isn't a collection of data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.136.68.165 (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Would you rather remove the subject rankings? or add international subject rankings next to them? I am personally okay with either option. As an international student, and as imperial is an international school, International subject rankings would seem relevant if we are to include the subject rankings section. I would strongly disagree with European subject rankings being biased, there is no bias in the rankings (including undue weight). If anything international subject rankings have more pro-american university bias. Very few of the top universities in europe are included in international subject rankings, they are all american universities. If you are a US or international student and want to see how universities outside the US are doing in their respective subjects a Europe subject ranking would seem the most useful statistic for this.

I meant we should simply leave those overall ranks as people could check for the details (like the positions within UK and Europe) via the citations if wanted. Besides, disciplinary rankings are also redundant since there are dozens of lists released by different ranking agencies, which classify those subjects in different ways. QS and US News, for example, have over 20 tables for subject rankings and we, obviously, shouldn't include them all here since Wikipedia isn't a datum collector. A general image is enough. 14.136.68.165 (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2015

Rankings

The rankings are very important in the introduction to emphasize Imperial's reputation as a world class global research university, instead of a local college the same as any other university people have never heard of. While Imperial is well regarded in the UK, globally such as in the United States almost no one has heard of Imperial College London. Imperial is a world class institution and some places outside of the United Kingdom, other needs to be made aware of this, so as more top talent, faculty, research funding, and job opportunities are drawn into this institution. As many people have not heard of Imperial abroad, this is their first introduction to the school and their comparison reference point to establish Imperial as not just another local college. This is the same way research is introduced; the importance of the topic is first emphasized in the introduction. As others have also said, please keep the world university rankings in the introduction.

-- The wikipedia page is meant to be neutral in format - NOT a promotional page for Imperial College London. In accordance with the wikipedia pages of other British universities, Imperial should not be different just so that it presents Imperial in a better light. Accordingly, I have edited the page so that the {{ Infobox UK Universities }} template present in the wikipedia pages of all other British universities is (which includes Imperial's ranking according to domestic indicators) is seen once again.

---This is biased.... It keeps changing Imperial to skew towards one ranking in neglect of all the rest. The textbooks, rankings, etc., have adjusted in neglect of others opinions, when more than one global ranking of the main four QS, THE, AWRU, and US News represents Imperial. Imperial is consistently included among the best universities in the world, and it is skewing the results to show it in a more negative light, which is not realistic or accurate. Yes, the AWRU ranks Imperial 22nd, however this is one survey that grades on Nobel Prize and award winners. It also only reflects on two subjects, some of which Imperial does not publish in as much as other universities. In no way do 3 global consistent surveys showing Imperial as one of the best in the world get biased by one survey skewing the result, when Imperial is a technical school focusing on certain subjects. Please Leave the header sentence alone, you have already changed the infoboxes etc., and frankly this difference is understand neutrality, as the opinion is deflating and not neutral. Do you think Harvard or any university is #1 on every survey in the world, no of course not. In no way do all the rankings need to be in the introduction, this is fine in the ranking section, and you have done so. Imperial is among the best schools in the world and should be left as such. Please Check out UC Berkeley's wiki introduction please before changing the rankings anymore. Many schools have both good and bad rankings, and UC Berkeley is not highly ranked on everything either, no school is. I can understand to change the template, but changing the heading is too much and not neutral, it is painting Imperial in a negative light to reflect one result. It was not me who wrote please leave the rankings as such in the introduction, but this was removed also so you can paste in your own biased rankings system, which leads with the worst possible ranking (this is often the most meaningful one) and skews the introduction toward one ranking indicator, in neglect of the overwhelming consistent evidence Imperial is among the top universities in the world and consistently in the top 10. This was the sentence written before, which is very well written by someone else (not by me). It sounds much better than the new sentence written honestly. "Imperial is consistently included among the top universities in the world, (please leave the following rankings in alpha-order to ensure neutrality) in 2015 ranking 2nd in the QS World University Rankings and 9th in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings." Just having a positive ranking does not mean something is not neutral, it is accurate. Check out UC Berkeley before making any more ranking changes, and explain to them and all the other universities using a positive ranking as a descriptor that they are not neutral. It is neutral, it is just one statistic, but it is not neutral to lead with the lowest major indicator, when the other three are pretty consistent, and this one is an outlier. It belongs in the rankings section, not the introduction.

This is absolutely ridiculous. Why should Imperial have its very own rankings template when EVERY other wikipedia page of British Universities includes the standard template of the 3 main global rankings and the 3 main domestic rankings? This is not a matter of presenting Imperial in a negative light, the ARWU is shown first because the template is ordered alphabetically. The page needs to be kept NEUTRAL in format (i.e. the same as it is for every other UK university wikipedia page) to allow viewers to make a comparison. The US News ranking is already included in the text under the Rankings section. Domestic rankings MUST be included in the template. As I have said before, this is NOT a promotional page for Imperial. I suggest you to take a look at the wikipedia pages of every other British University - LSE does poorly in the ARWU however its editors have never felt the need to create an entirely new template to hide that. Emynimbley (talk) 20:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

---The rankings continue to be revert changes back to how you wrote them, in spite of others opinions in the talk section that we like the proceeding sentence. I have tried to offer you an olive branch, that you created the new infobox rankings, and just leave the top sentence alone. You already changed the important ranking infobox, lets settle at that compromise. I did not like your edits to begin with, but left them anyways, because it is not just my article, but yours too. This was not my writing, and I personally like other people's sentence more than I like your new sentence. Please lets just settle at that. We left the new info box alone, despite others objections, lets leave this sentence alone too. I think that sounds like a fair olive branch compromise instead of a heated war debate, and continuing changing each others edits.

I agree with both of the above statements. In regards to the first statement: many people do not know of Imperial (especially in the US) and need to know of it as a world class institution, which this article should present. In regards to the second statement: I agree with the second commentary as well, that this article can be presented this way in a neutral format. They are both very good points, and both should be used. For me, I am sorry, but I do wonder, I know there are many infoboxes as ranking indicators, is there a simpler one which could be used, (as I get lost in all the details), it might help others to navigate the page more easily? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6003:5900:6DAD:B15C:EE4:B04 (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you two are really two persons since multiple IP addresses have appeared on the history page for the same edit. In short, I'm not eager to argue with you on which league table is better. My point is simple - it's extremely biased to include the two English-world rankings only. You said ARWU was an outlier but what's the definition of an "outlier"? 2 vs 9 vs 12 vs 22 So, which one is an outlier? Imperial's rank on QS is different from that on US News by 10, same as the situation between US News and ARWU. It's more like you're selecting those rankings where Imperial is ranked high (top 10) and I strongly disagree that this is protecting the neutrality of Wikipedia. To show the reader the whole picture, we should either include all, or give a simple summary with references. 14.136.68.165 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I think there were two people editing this conversation, I was one of the them. An outlier is when one data point is farther away from the others, and reflects the dispersion of the data. The spread of the data between 2 and 9 is a difference of 7, and then the difference between 9 and 12 is a difference of 3. These three points are more clumped up tighter, in their distribution. The difference between 12 and 22 is a difference of 10. It is one point that is farther out then the rest of the data. The farther out a point is from the rest of the data, makes it 1 or 2 Standard deviations away. The farther away a data point is the less reflective it of the actual data. Normally when there are outliers, you do not include them. Also normally you will be working with larger populations of data, but outliers are basically the distribution of the numbers, they measure how far a data point is i.e., how many standard deviations it is away from the rest of the data. Here is a good explanation on wiki, "For example, if one is calculating the average temperature of 10 objects in a room, and nine of them are between 20 and 25 degrees Celsius, but an oven is at 175 °C, the median of the data will be between 20 and 25 °C but the mean temperature will be between 35.5 and 40 °C. In this case, the median better reflects the temperature of a randomly sampled object than the mean; naively interpreting the mean as "a typical sample", equivalent to the median, is incorrect. As illustrated in this case, outliers may be indicative of data points that belong to a different population than the rest of the sample set." In my opinion the median for this distribution of data, because of the wider spread of the AWRU ranking from the rest of the data (i.e. more standard deviations away), the median of this data set is a better descriptor of the actual Imperial ranking then the mean of the data. The median of the data is the difference between 12 and 9. Therefore (12 + 9)/2 =21/2 = 10.5. 10.5 would be the closest descriptor of the real rankings for these prominent global university rankings in my opinion. I think this discussion belongs in the actual rankings section, not in the introduction. I think for the introduction if possible take the olive branch, and do the university ranking box (you wished to change to be more neutral in your opinion) and leave the introduction rankings the same. They are how many universities report there data.... ex: UC Berkeley, University of Edinburgh, LSE, ETH Zurich, where they list the good rankings about the universities. This is still a very neutral way to describe a university, and please just take the olive branch and do the rankings box, which you changed. That way we are each doing an important section of the wiki page, and the ranking box was important for you to change, so that way we do not argue and continue this conversation forever, I hope this is a fair way to describe the data. If you would rather switch roles, I can design the rankings box, and you can take out this sentence about the rankings, but I think you wanted the rankings box as such as you thought it was the most neutral. Anyways I hope this is a satisfactory agreement, and it is the best I would know how to do in a discussion over a wikipage, as opposed to in person chat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.35.162 (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
The spread of the data between 2 (by QS) and 9 (by THE) is a difference of 7 and that between 9 (by THE) and 12 (US News) is a difference of 3, right? So, why should we put QS and THE in the lead instead of THE and US News whose difference is smaller (or in your words "more consistent")? Moreover, that "outlier" may be far more important than the rest of the data and readers will judge all these themselves. To me, this is not a statistical matter of "outliers". Just because others do it doesn't mean we should do so. Dozens of good or featured articles (e.g. MIT, Oxford, Michigan, Duke, etc) don't list specific rankings for introduction, which is an overview of the whole page. Besides, all the pages you cited are tragedy in my eye, especially LSE (what a nice school brochure and promotion of QS). 14.136.68.165 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


I did not write that sentence, others have. At least leave the rankings for others who appreciate it as they are. If you do not want to take my olive branch suggestion and you do the inbox, and I leave this sentence how others, (not me) have written it, then we will just be editing each others work endlessly. Can we at least make this deal? I as well as the other person do not like the infobox you chose, and it is the same as is listed on the infobox website, that they are going to design a new infobox as there have been many complaints about its design. If you want to leave the infobox as is then leave this sentence as is. As far as LSE is concerned, they have one ranking by the USNews as an at 328 too, which is also an outlier and does not represent the school. You are right this is not about accurate rankings for you. At least be respectful to others who want rankings, as this is how the schools who report their rankings list them. Alternatively we can eliminate the 2 by QS if you feel that would help and just leave the THE you suggested, if you feel that is a better description for you. That is the best I can do, otherwise we will be changing each others edits continuously. Keep in mind it was others not me, who said leave the rankings as they are in the text section of the introduction, that was their opinion that they liked it to, how it was written including QS and THE. If you wish to remove QS so be it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6003:5900:3479:5D9:12E3:7EBC (talk) 02:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't have opinion about the design of the universal template unless it breaks the rule of neutrality. The LSE page is another issue. The template doesn't have the result of US News not because it is an "outlier" but it was consistent with QS as the two companies were collaborating with each other previously. Of course, I do agree that we can add the new-launched independent Global Universities Rankings to the template to enhance comprehensiveness. I never demand to completely remove information of rankings from the article. However, the lead is a summary providing the general view and shouldn't be dominated by any particular ranking, which is exactly what the LSE page wrongly did. I'd be in favor of leaving the first statement, which is "Imperial is consistently included among the top universities in the world", with citations of ARWU, QS, THE and US News. 14.136.68.165 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to work with you, I will try and change the template to a new version, which is not as clunky, with 4 rankings. I will include AWRU too, which does not need to be first to be neutral, keep that in mind. I will include the new US NEWS Global Universities Rankings as they are more prevalent rankings in America. I think QS and THE are more common globally, and AWRU is also used for its strong methodology. I personally do not think AWRU describes Imperial as much, because its rankings only take articles from two subjects, and Imperial focuses on 4 subject specifically, environmental publications in Nature journals and Social Science publications are not really Imperial's specialty as it is a technical school, while Science is included. There are 4 subjects Imperial looks at. It will include all 4 of these major rankings though, so thus it will be as neutral as it can be, and there should not be any criticism about neutrality. I am glad you are okay changing the template unless it breaks the rule of neutrality, which there is no possible way it can by including these 4 rankings, you want to include. Thus all major global rankings are covered. :)
Rankings are arranged alphabetically in the template so ARWU comes first. Besides, ARWU is more objective and academic-centered which focuses more on science and technology (Nobel laureates, Fields Medalists, etc) and it does represent Imperial College, a technical institution, well.

Ok that sounds good about the template, that you do not have an opinion on the design. The template is thus presented neutrally. I left ARWU (spelled per your change) instead of ARWU World University, as per your change to it. Overall, I think showing all these four rankings will present all the rankings, and will create a 100 % neutral rankings section per your request. I think you are right to include ARWU to this section as an objective academic centered ranking, as it is a widely used metric, and it is included accordingly into this template. All the 4 major rankings are included, so it is neutral, which is what you cared about.

Imperial is a British University therefore domestic indicators (Times/ST, Complete & Guardian) MUST be included. The ranking you have included is still NOT neutral, you created this template especially for Imperial. Until other Wikipedia pages have specially designed templates for their rankings then the template you edit in will not be approved. Emynimbley (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh okay that makes sense. Initially, I never read your reasoning and thus changed it back as it just said refer to Talk page, but now upon reading your reasoning. You sparked a very great point, the template should not only include global indicators, it should include domestic indicators too. Imperial is a British University and domestic indicators should be used, this is nothing to do with neutrality, but to use global indicators, but it must include the domestic indicators too. Excellent point! Thanks for raising this point. Yes, this was created for Imperial, and there is no problem with creating a template, it does not need to be a generic template, that many people do not like, and their is discussion on that template page about changing the template too. The other person above was okay to change the template. You have made an excellent point, and I think it must be included about domestic indicators. I think you are right these three domestic indicators should really be included too: Times/ST, Complete, & Guardian must be included, you are right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.13.60 (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Imperial College London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Imperial College London is relatively unknown in the United States

While Imperial College London is well known in Europe, in the United States at least 97 percent of people (or more) have never heard of Imperial College London. Many could not separate this school from an unknown community college. It is important that the introduction establishes Imperial as a world class school, which it is, and that Imperial is consistently ranked in the top 10 schools in the world by several rankings. As every school claims they are among the best in the world, the introduction does not yet fully show that Imperial is really among the best schools in the world. For many Americans that have never before heard of Imperial, this webpage will be all they will ever see or hear about Imperial College London, and so the introduction could be more descriptive of Imperial's prominence in the world university scene. Some Americans have heard of the London School of Economics, and it appears a much better and more important school than Imperial by reading their wikipedia page. As this is all that many Americans will ever read about Imperial College London, it would be nice if it could improve the introductions importance particularly in the 2nd or 3rd paragraph, where considering every university writes they are among the best in the world, the school seems quite average. I understand in Europe Imperial is very well known, and considered excellent over there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:6003:5900:5C38:20F3:DF23:AC5C (talk) 05:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Citation for 97% (only joking). Well the world is bigger than the US and UK! I'm not sure what you would change, please suggest things but the intro appears clear to me that Imperial has a strong reputation, it's not Harvard, Mit or Stanford but up there with others of a high rank. Also please comment at the bottom and sign your comment with ~~~~Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
True, I don't have a citation for Imperial being unknown in the US by almost all Americans. I am guessing around 98 percent of Americans do not know it (just joking, but seriously no one has heard of it.) I think it is among the top schools in the world by rankings, but from the US in reading about the London School of Economics that appears like a great and much better school. I hear that Imperial and UCL actually are more solid (besides economics and politics.) In reading the Wiki's I would have thought LSE was Harvard and Imperial was beneath it. For those from other countries we are kinda out of the loop at understanding universities in Europe. What separates this from other universities or community colleges. The middle paragraph has one sentence about medical facilities built, is there anything else that is notable about the school? Similar to how LSE has written a few more descriptions and facts (billionaires, research prominence, government positions). I think overall the introduction is very well written and gives it a strong reputation. Just when you read wiki's its hard to understand when every school claims they are the best, but why is Imperial higher in many rankings. LSE sounds like a better school from their wikipedia entry? Is there a little more that could be added to the middle paragraph maybe to explain Imperial's high rankings? Trying to understand more about the school, and this is most American's main source of information to learn why Imperial is ranked so highly. I think maybe another sentence could be added to the middle paragraph or something to clarify for those from other countries.?07:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC) ~~~~2605:E000:6003:5900:3505:166E:11C3:A45B (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it is important for Americans to view it as a top 10 institution in the world among others with a high rank. In America it is not viewed that way, it is viewed as just another college. I think the only thing to change could be to set a reference point for others outside the UK (particularly in America) to view it to understand Imperial better. The global college rankings are a good way for others to put into perspective Imperial as a world class school to compare it with other schools they have heard of, and understand that point rather easily and quick. There are many at top schools (Harvard, Stanford, Caltech, NYU, University of Chicago, University of Pennsylvania, etc., in the US) who have never even heard of Imperial, and would never include it amongst other US top schools in the top 10 because they have never heard of it. Yet it often is included among top 10 global rankings for the worlds best schools on numerous rankings. Establishing a reference point by including Imperial's consistent top 10 placement in global rankings will be hugely beneficial from a global perspective. Thanks for allowing suggestions. ~~~~
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imperial_College_London/Archive_1&oldid=1085914772"