Talk:Imperial College London/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Intro changes

The previous introduction was well liked by several users. Many changes were just suggested to the intro at once. I am including these new ideas here to the best of my ability so we can vote on them and form a consensus. Do you have opinions, Shadowssettle, Aloneinthewild, IP addresses who made these edit suggestions. In my opinion the previous three paragraph structure was preffered, instead of a new paragraph structure. What is all of your opinions on these suggested ideas to include (or other intro suggestions)?

• location adjacent Hyde Park
• unique in the Uk, with faculties focusing solely on science, engineering, medicine, and business
• Imperial is best known for the influential nature of its research
• research answers scientific questions and practically addresses global challenges.
• Imperial is one of the most internationally diverse universities in the world, with 59% of its students being from outside the UK, and more than 140 countries represented.
• Sentence about 2016 White City campus in first paragraph. Since 2016, a new innovation campus has been opening in stages in White City, providing new space for research and collaboration with industry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecurry1 (talk • contribs) 05:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

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. I don't think Hyde Park is particularly relevant at all for an intro, and it is also a few blocks away (the college is actually closer to Kensington Gardens), so personally I'd be against putting it so high up — it is already covered well in the campus section. The rest reeks a little of WP:PUFFERY from my perspective, so would caution strongly against their inclusion, lest the intro feel promotional.

I feel the 2nd paragraph you temporarily (?) introduced feels a little awkward right now, but carries the more relevant information from the changes made by the IP edit. Also, looking over the intro, I'm not sure the laying of the foundation stone for the somewhat unrelated Imperial Institute (its buildings do not form the college, apart from Queen's Tower, and the college was not made by the institute) is particularly relevant — should the same be done for the Science and Natural History museums? I would hazard a “no” Shadowssettle_(talk) 18:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

My personal opinion on including these:

1. Three paragraphs over two. It follows the pages layout, para1: Intro and history, para2:Campuses and organisation, para3: Academic profile/famous alumni
2. Hyde Park, no
3. unique in the UK, no - all universities are unique in many ways. This gets too close to puffery
4. influence nature of research, might be difficult. Again comes close to puffery. How do you judge influence of research
5. Diversity, that could be relevant. I tried before to include a statement on the number of students but I think that was reverted.
6. White City, it could be useful to say the campus has started to open.

Thanks Aloneinthewild (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree, however, I think on point #3: if worded in terms of the university's focus rather than it being unique, then it doesn't seem like puffery Shadowssettle_(talk) 19:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

True, thats works as well. I find the current wording " Imperial is organised through".. a little clumsy. Can we think of a better way to word that sentence? Aloneinthewild (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with everything said here pretty much. I also think the intro is good overall and should be maintained. We should add Aloneinthewild's description to the Wiki paragraph 1: Intro and history, paragraph 2:Campuses and organisation, paragraph 3: Academic profile/famous alumni. I agree with Shadowsettle that part of the IP editors edits came across as WP:PUFFERY. Therefore, I think there is consensus to avoid words like unique, etc. Per point 5 it seems there is consensus to include a sentence about diversity, such as the one by the IP user that was maintained by Shadowssettle. In terms of White City that seems important as well and there is also consensus among us to include it. I am okay with White City being in either the first or second paragraph. It may fit nicely into the second paragraph if we are describing campuses there. It can also fit in the first paragraph if it is written up as part of Imperials history. In terms of the first pargarph, I view the part about the Imperial Institute sentence as interesting and being essential to Imperial's history, since Imperial's early foundation was opened by the Queen and developed from there. Similar with its close relationship and history as being part of Albertopolis as as a science and arts district around those museums. I think that really shaped the school and its culture in my opinion. So I think that part should be maintained, as it is essential to Imperial's history since its foundation. Do you guys have an opinion on the sentence about being part of the University of London and leaving it later, do you think that is still important for the intro, I thought it may not be that important, but was wondering what you guys thought as well? Perhaps that is a sentence to remove Shadowssettle if you wanted to have the white city part in the first paragraph. Perhaps White City addition fits in the second pargarph per aloneinthewild's paragraph structure. Could be either though. I agree that the sentence about the colleges focus of study that can be reworded too if you guys have ideas for that. The sentence about diversity included could be reworded also. Think we are in consensus agreement for the inclusion of White City, the diversity sentence, and rewording the sentence about the colleges focus too. Thought what ShadowSettle wrote about white city as a general idea was good, not sure how to fit it in yet, first or second para. Best, Mikecurry1 (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Second Paragraph, Diversity Sentence: The second paragraph and diversity sentence could use editing. The second and third sentences can probably be synthesized into one. Shadowsettle sentence added.

Current: "The main campus is located in South Kensington, with a new innovation campus in White City. Imperial is organised through faculties of science, engineering, medicine and business. The university's emphasis is on technology and its practical application. Imperial is amongst the most international universities in the world, with 59% of students from outside the UK and more than 140 countries represented on campus.

Proposed: "The main campus is located in South Kensington. A second innovation campus is located in White City, providing space for research and collaboration with industry. Imperial's curriculum has a practical emphasis focusing on the subjects of science, engineering, medicine, and business. Students are from more than 140 different countries creating an international student community. 47.180.86.65 (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Just a proposal for clean language, using the prevailing preference for a three paragraph introduction:

Imperial College London (officially Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine) is a public research university located in London, United Kingdom. The college was formed in 1907 from the Royal School of Mines and the Royal College of Science, with its earliest origins dating back to 1845, In 1907, the college joined the and was originally part of the University of London, before leaving it a century later , becoming independent a century after the college's formation.1 Its founder, Prince Albert, envisioned a cultural area composed of the Victoria and Albert Museum, Natural History Museum, Royal Albert Hall, and the Imperial Institute. His wife, Queen Victoria, laid the foundation stone on the current site of the college for the Imperial Institute in 1888.2 In 1988, the Imperial College School of Medicine was formed through a merger with St Mary's Hospital Medical School. In3, and in 2004, Queen Elizabeth II opened the Imperial College Business School. The main campus is located in South Kensington centred around Queen's Lawn, with a new innovation campus in White City.4 The college also has a research centre at Silwood Park and campuses at the many affiliated hospitals throughout London. Imperial is organised through faculties of science, engineering, medicine and business. The university's emphasis is on technology and its practical application. Imperial's emphasis is on the practical application of science and technology, and is organised through faculties of natural science, engineering, medicine and business.5 Imperial is amongst the most international universities in the world, with 59% of students from outside the UK and more than 140 countries represented on campus.6 In 2018-19, Imperial is ranked 8th globally and (1st in London) in the QS World University Rankings, 9th in the THE World University Rankings and 24th in the Academic Ranking of World Universities. It was ranked by Reuters The World's Most Innovative Universities as the most innovative university in Europe. As of October 2018, 14 Nobel laureates, 3 Fields Medalists, and 1 Turing Award winner have been affiliated with Imperial College London as alumni, faculty or researchers, in addition to 74 Fellows of the Royal Society, 84 Fellows of the Royal Academy of Engineering, and 85 Fellows of the Academy of Medical Sciences

Why? Overall I think my problem with the history section of the first paragraph can be collected as: this is meant to be about Imperial, yet the intro focuses more about Albertopolis. I feel adding an introduction to the formation of the college proper up front before the mention of Albertopolis helps refocus it. I also think the University of London connection is quite mentionable, as it is a recent-ish event with an institution responsible for the degree awarding for most of the college's life, similar to the Bristol article mentioning it was once University College, Bristol. Maybe also the sentence can be split, but it does all flow. I don't see why the foundation of the loosely connected Imperial Institute is so important, most of that was knocked down to form the college, and there is no organisational link as far as I'm aware. However, seeing as people seem to want it, I think it should at least be linked to the college somehow, rather than seemingly hanging there with no connection. I feel the incredibly short sentences in the original make it seem like bullet points without the line breaks, especially with them all starting with "In %YYYY" format. Maybe (given change 1) now it's two rather than three in a row of this format, it can be kept as is, but still, maybe change it up somehow. I feel this is better, as the White City campus is rather minor, so not much emphasis need be placed on it. I added the bit about Queen's Lawn as it seems to be a thing University pages do, and provides a psuedo-link to more info about the main campus in particular. This flows slightly nicer I feel then the jolting short sentence on its emphasis I think changing this as suggested to be talking about this making an international student community seems unnecessary, and in some ways WP:PUFFERY since it is obvious taking in international students will create such, and such wording seems to try and sell it. Maybe it's just me, but I think it's better as is.

I have removed citations for this, I'd be happy to put them back in and add a few more on the final agreed format. Anyway, as always this is just my opinion — feel free to shout it down or whatnot Shadowssettle_(talk) 00:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Shadowsettle, you made a ton of edits. Some of them were quite excellent and a big improvement! I had incoporated some into the article. Others were a bit controversial for me as they were quite bold. I think in terms of the new intro proposal, I think the biggest contribution of this is to the second paragraphs, which got much better. I preffered the last version of the first paragraph though before this major rewrite of it though. I view the Imperial Institute and Prince Albert as foundational to the college history, and a predecssor to the current set up of the university. For example, Why do you think the university is called Imperial College London, it is named after the Imperial Institute. This should help explain the importance of the Imperial Institute. Similarly, all of the historic buildings, while they took a few years sometimes to get a royal warrant, were part of prince albert's vision for the area of albertopolis as an arts and science center. Therefore, I tried to incoprorate your changes and the IP editors changes. So, the first paragraph of the intro I had preffered the previous version though, while the second paragraph edits of the intro were great and implemented.

There were also many edits of the body of the article. In terms of the body history edits, I think we can primarily use something similar to the history section as written by the school https://www.imperial.ac.uk/about/history/college-developments/ and also https://www.imperial.ac.uk/business-school/about-us/history/. I think it should be kept concise, which improves readability of the article. This is just in my opinion. Best, Mikecurry1 (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I did know the reason for the name, and I do now see where you are coming from mentioning the institute, although I think it's important that this be explained, hence the suggestion for adding "on the current site of the college" in my suggested intro. Could you outline your thoughts on the suggested improvements to the introduction, or provide alternatives, so we can work towards a final consensus. For example, what are your thoughts on the inclusion of the Royal College of Chemistry into the introduction — in the proposal given I tried to integrate the information about the Great Exhibition and the colleges.

In terms of the changes to the rest of the article, I've tried to avoid using college sources completely to keep the article well-sourced and reliable, however, feel free (as always) to augment the article with further information from the college's timelines. I agree they should be clear, however, this doesn't mean they should be bereft of information, and I feel the history section if anything right now should be expanded - compare the history section of Bristol — an institution of comparable age — or the 21st century section of Warwick. Both are much larger, granted full of extraneous events, but Yale's shows it can be kept to more pertinent details. Seeing as unlike Harvard and Cornell, the college is probably not nearly historic enough for it to have its own history page (although Stanford does have one, being of similar age and with only recent rise to such fame along with Silicon Valley), I do think the history section should probably be relatively comprehensive, although obviously concise and not filled with minutiae.

I did know the reason for the name, and I do now see where you are coming from mentioning the institute, although I think it's important that this be explained, hence the suggestion for adding "on the current site of the college" in my suggested intro. Could you outline your thoughts on the suggested improvements to the introduction, or provide alternatives, so we can work towards a final consensus. For example, what are your thoughts on the inclusion of the Royal College of Chemistry into the introduction — in the proposal given I tried to integrate the information about the Great Exhibition and the colleges.

In terms of the changes to the rest of the article, I've tried to avoid using college sources completely to keep the article well-sourced and reliable, however, feel free (as always) to augment the article with further information from the college's timelines. I agree the section should be clear, however, this doesn't mean it should be bereft of information, and I feel the history section if anything right now should be expanded - compare the history section of Bristol — an institution of comparable age — or the 21st century section of Warwick. Both are much larger, granted full of extraneous events, the like of which should not be included here, but Yale's shows it can be kept to more pertinent details. Seeing as unlike Harvard and Cornell, the college is probably not nearly historic enough for it to have its own history page (although Stanford does have one, being of similar age and with only recent rise to such fame along with Silicon Valley), I do think the history section should probably be relatively comprehensive, although obviously concise and not filled with minutiae.

Anyway, please do add what you think should be added! Please don't randomly pull Great Exhibition information to the top though — there are events which precede it Shadowssettle_(talk) 17:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: I don't see the need, although I can understand the intent, to remove information from the medical campus section, similar to how the South Ken campus description contains such information. If we are to keep it short, it might be better to actually just list (in a list) them with their facilities, with the short introductory paragraph for their purpose before the list. I also really dislike the current image for St Mary's (just personal opinion, I know), because it just shows a door at a minor part of the hospital, without context. Shadowssettle_(talk) 18:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Shadowssettle, I can describe why I preferred that previous paragraph, including three main critiques. First, that intro pargraph has been very very heavily critiqued and edited with numerous revisions by many editors over the history of this article, so I think that pargarph is probably best to maintain. I think efforts are better spent on the second paragraph because of this. Second, I think that while some of the buildings were built before the college was created, these were still part of prince alberts vision and patronage. So they recieved royal warrants soon after they were built, but they are essentially because of his patronage and vision. Therefore, I thought it made sense that prince alberts vision was the forerunner to the campuses foundation. I also think the new rewrite has dates that are all over the place, in a way that was harder for me to follow. My recommendation is that the history section of the intro is very well written so there is generally no reason to rewrite that; This 1st paragraph has been very heavily edited and critiqued by a ton of editors so should not be rewritten in my opinion. The second paragraph of the intro could be improved upon further though. It has not gone through as many revisions and critiques. I think you have been doing this. So effort could be focused on that section of the intro, or on the alumni sentences of the intro. Editors had proposed these sections could be improved. We could form new consensus on those sentences, that would be an improvement.

In terms of the body history section, I am okay with some expansion and major editing. I think we should maintain high readability through clean rewriting that is also concise. I do think Albertopolis and the Imperial Institute were important, though the Queens tower is the last remaining remnant of it. I think this has shaped the school and its influence, such as setting up the practical curriculum of the school, because of its historic collaborations with industry. Overall though, in my opinion I think it should be consistent with the university website history section as that is written pretty clean. You can edit that history section as you like. Of course, you have been very bold with your edits, so do not feel offended if some edits are liked by the community, while other edits are not liked as much.

The previous hospital campus version was easy to read and sharply written as it was concise. If you prefer to rewrite this section you can. I can get behind what you wrote here, "If we are to keep it short, it might be better to actually just list (in a list) them with their facilities, with the short introductory paragraph for their purpose before the list." Think that would keep it concise and easy to read. It may be a waste of time to reformat this, as it is currently clean and well written, but you can change the hospital campuses section if you want too.

The two hospital images were a little crowded on my screen with two. Lets use the new st mary's hospital image u just inserted then. I like that one too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecurry1 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I understand the reason for removing the second image if the short hospital campus section is to be kept, just not the reversion to the original image. The comment about pulling the Great Exhibition to the top was related to the History section of the article, rather than the first paragraph of the introduction — if you feel the need to include Prince Albert and his vision more up front and early on in the article's history section, please do, but can we keep the Great Exhibition proper and South Ken later on is all I'm asking. Please do expand the history section — there is much more important information that can be put in the article, such as relevant dates for the important events pertaining to women in the college, the union, and expansion, for starters. Also, I turned the hospital campuses into a list — as they're short, it seems wrong to have repeated words just in a new paragraph over and over again — and I have prepared an updated proposal for the top section, based on discussion here

Imperial College London (officially Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine) is a public research university located in London, United Kingdom. The college was formed in 1907 from the Royal School of Mines and the Royal College of Science, with its earliest origins dating back to 1845. Its founder, Prince Albert, envisioned a cultural area composed of the Victoria and Albert Museum, Natural History Museum, Royal Albert Hall, and the Imperial Institute. His wife, Queen Victoria, laid the foundation stone on the current site of the college for the Imperial Institute in 1888. In 1988, the Imperial College School of Medicine was formed through a merger with St Mary's Hospital Medical School, and in 2004, Queen Elizabeth II opened the Imperial College Business School. The college left the University of London in 2007, having been a part of the university since it's formation a century earlier. The main campus is located in South Kensington centred around Queen's Lawn, with a new innovation campus in White City. The college also has a research centre at Silwood Park and campuses at the many affiliated hospitals throughout London. Imperial's emphasis is on the practical application of science and technology, and is organised through faculties of natural science, engineering, medicine and business. The college is amongst the most international universities in the world, with 59% of students from outside the UK and more than 140 countries represented on campus. In 2018-19, Imperial is ranked 8th globally and 1st in London in the QS World University Rankings, 9th in the THE World University Rankings and 24th in the Academic Ranking of World Universities. It was ranked by Reuters The World's Most Innovative Universities as the most innovative university in Europe. As of October 2018, 14 Nobel laureates, 3 Fields Medalists, and 1 Turing Award winner have been affiliated with Imperial College London as alumni, faculty or researchers, in addition to 74 Fellows of the Royal Society, 84 Fellows of the Royal Academy of Engineering, and 85 Fellows of the Academy of Medical Sciences

Shadowssettle_(talk) 18:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Shadowssettle, was just editing the paragraph I wrote above, so please read what I just wrote. We were typing at the same time.

Read this proposed change. I think the current version of the first pargarph is still easier to read and cleaner. The idea of the royal school of mines and college of science is a good one for the intro, but I think the previous intro version includes most of the information in an easier to read way. I think sometimes we want to rewrite things, but you must realize that this paragraph has been so heavily edited and refined over time, it may not be necessary to rewrite it. I know you want to leave a mark, so just realize that this paragraph has gone through revisions by many many editors already, and the second paragraph and alumni section is a better focus. I have included some of your changes to that intro paragraph already.

Yes, I was just reading though it. I disagree that the first paragraph is great as is, as I have stated before, I find it puts extraneous information pertaining to the formation of Albertopolis before the information about the college or its predecessors. I agree it is important, but I think a direct statement about the formation of the college's formation through that of its predecessors is more pertinent and should come just prior — this is an introduction's second sentence, not a timeline (although I agree the rest of the paragraph should be kept in date order to keep it sensible), and it is pretty standard to put a foundation date up front, as can be seen in Good Articles of WP:UNI (Yale, Harvard, Bristol University, Cambridge University, Oxford University, Durham University), although I do see the argument that Imperial has history before its foundation, I disagree that this is how the introduction should be formatted. I also have a problem with the sentence "In 1907, the college joined the University of London, before leaving it a century later.", especially since the introduction doesn't clarify that this is when the college was formed (in fact there is no information on the formation of the college, hence my first point of contention). I would guess many editors have dealt with this article, and indeed this paragraph, but that doesn't go to say that improvements can't be made. Also, this has nothing to do with leaving a mark, I don't want my edits here in particular, I've edited many articles in my time and don't care about leaving a mark on any one of them, a would much prefer a consensus — even if it is very different to what I propose — if I can understand the reasoning behind it. It has instead to do with trying to reason why the college article seems to start with minimal information about the college proper or its predecessors (not even a foundation date). Anyway, just my thoughts Shadowssettle_(talk) 19:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that 1907 sentence could gain consensus for a change. Yes, other editors have dealt with that 1907 sentence in the intro before also. I had found a similar version to one previously used. How about "In 1907, the college was granted a Royal Charter and joined the University of London, before leaving it a century later."

I have looked at the Good Articles links WP:UNI (Yale, Harvard, Bristol University, Cambridge University, Oxford University, Durham University) you suggested to browse. I think many of these show who it was founded by (ministers, clergy, Boston elites, grew out of scholars, etc.) I think this is formatted very similarly to how Prince Albert was a forerunner to this university, so I think this is very consistent with these article format. None of these had a sentence about the early forerunner colleges in their intro, it is about the founders of the university or in Imperial's case prince albert. So I think that should be maintained and is fine without a major rewrite for the two colleges in this intro. These are very important in the history section I think. I also thought the 3 pargaraph format suggested by AloneintheWild is very good and should be maintained too. It is bold editing to suggest rewriting the intro, switching it to two paragraphs and what not, so please do not take offense that some of the proposed changes were liked and others not. Keep in mind, your edits have been bold, so some will not have full consenus. For example, I also like the Hyde Park inclusion, while others do not like this in the intro also, so it is not included. Despite, some edits not having consensus, especially introduction major rewrites, I found your edits to be excellent improvements of the article!!!! Many of your edits have been implemented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecurry1 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

You suggested you can improve the 1907 sentence Shadowssettle, please do. :) Mikecurry1 (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I see your point about the other articles. You also misunderstand if you think I take any offence (although I do want it clear I am not eager to 'make my mark'), I just want to make sure I understood why the article is as such. I do think the simple change to the introduce the date as a founding date does seem to improve the first paragraph a lot — I will see if it can do with any tweaking. I also still think it would be better to tie the Imperial Institute construction with the college, through a phrase like "on the site of the college" or "where the college currently stands". Otherwise, I would concur the introduction should probably be left as is. Shadowssettle_(talk) 22:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

That would be an improvement. I think the reason the article is as such is because of many editors edits. Generally, the history section of the intro is in its current form, because many editors had really tore it apart to make improvements to it. It used to be really bad, and now it is generally well liked, with many editors having had shaped it. The reason why Albertopolis was emphasized is because I think many people thought Prince Albert was an influential person in Imperial's history, his wife laid the foundation of the Imperial Institute's first stone. This was the forerunner of the college name. Prince Albert was instrumental in the early Royal Colleges being "Royal," and the founding of the contextual area around imperial with all the museums. His patronage gave the imperial institute its early influence and the funding to proceed, as well as luring some scientific researchers. Some parts of the early universities history were also very negative such as the imperial institute being used to research UK's colonies and their resources, while other parts of the imperial institute established imperial as an influential through excellent research, having an international impact, and its emphasis on practical applications of science in working in collaboration with industry as well. I think a good summation of the early history of the school is written by the business school website [1] which succinctly describes Imperial's early history around 1851. Imperial has a very interesting and rich history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecurry1 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I thought the history was too much of a summary compared to other university articles, good work on adding more detail. This is an encyclopedia so any relevant information can be used. You are free to suggest any improvements to the introduction, although it has been stable for a while it still can be improved. For example at the moment there is no date of foundation for Albertopolis or any mention of Silwood Park and the hospital sites (I would go and add information about the hospitals). Aloneinthewild (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Shadowsettle, yes, nice job on the history section. Great job adding more detail there.

Perhaps, you like this 1907 sentence better? I am erasing the University of London part to include the part about the royal colleges from your suggested edit. Then it shows the university is being merged with schools who have been around before the formation of the university itself and could tie the imperial institute better to the formation of the school per your critique. I think it may have too much information to include every history fact in the intro, but perhaps it is better to change that sentence to include what was proposed from your 1907 sentence version.

Found this Previous 1907 Version: In 1907, the college was granted a royal charter and joined the University of London, before leaving it a century later.

Your 1907 Version: The college was formed in 1907 from the Royal School of Mines and the Royal College of Science, with its earliest origins dating back to 1845.

Proposed New Merged 1907 Version: In 1907, the university was given royal charter by merging the Imperial Institute, Royal School of Mines and Royal College of Science.

Any opinions for the 1907 sentence?

Best, Mikecurry1 (talk) 12:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Second paragraph is much improved with the addition of white city, hospitals, etc., thanks Shadowsettle! I took out a small part about queens lawn, which could be in the intro if desired, yet it felt awkwardly placed into that sentence currently with how I was reading it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecurry1 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, the new hospital section of the body looks much better too.Mikecurry1 (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you like something like this better? It is maintaining the same stable highly edited version with some new suggested revisions fit in.

Imperial College London (officially Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine) is a public research university located in London, United Kingdom. Its founder in 1945, Prince Albert, began building his vision for an area for art and science 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 received royal charter merging the Imperial Institute, Royal School of Mines, and Royal College of Science. 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.

Best,Mikecurry1 (talk) 14:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I made some changes to the wording. (on aside- Imperial Institute is a redirect, that could probably be developed into a separate article) Aloneinthewild (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, your changes are an improvement Aloneinthewild. You are a great writer. Mikecurry1 (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure about saying the Imperial Institute in that sentence, it looks like the City and Guilds College is the organisation that merged. Am I right in this thinking: Imperial Institute had some research activity (but didn't continue and eventually the building was demolished), this led to City and Guilds of London Institute being formed, this became the City and Guilds College. The history is a little hard to follow Aloneinthewild (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

The Imperial Institute was not merged to form the college, rather became known as the Commonwealth Institute, which closed down in 2015, an institution quite separate from the college, except for a decently large shared history. It is also not directly related to, nor the inspiration for, the City and Guilds college, that being the engineering institute planned by the City of London's guilds, although the final site of the CGC was part of the South Kensington development. The Institute's relationship to Imperial is more to do with the shared history rather than anything else (which is why I've always tried to reduce its presence in the article, although I agree now it is something noteworthy). The buildings were even temporarily used by the University of London at times, yet that is also not formed from the Imperial Institute. The introduction, as it stands at the time of writing this, is thus afaik mistaken. (Please correct me if I'm wrong - I have read a bit on the history of this but may easily be mistaken myself). I also don't see how 1845 was the date when the area was planned out specifically, the Royal College of Chemistry was founded on a compeltely different site with no original intention to move it or build up an area of any sort in South Kensington, although under the same vision of the prince. I get what the new introduction is trying to do, but it seems to be misleading in many senses as far as I know. Shadowssettle_(talk) 18:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to incorporate the changes, removing what I found were misleading statements (again, correct me if I'm wrong). The UoL statement may be a little confusing now, since I haven't found a place to put in that it left as part of the flow of the intro. Shadowssettle_(talk) 18:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Hi Shadowssettle, yes, I believe the Imperial Institute was the reason for the name imperial College London and merged with the royal colleges to form imperial college of science and technology. [2][3]. City and Guilds College also merged, but I believe the Imperial Institute was more for research. When the college needed to expand the imperial institute was torn down and moved to become the commonwealth institute. Two lions remain by the front of the queens tower while the other two were moved to the commonwealth institute. I was trying to find the Royal Charter, originally granted under Letters Patent in 1907. for a much better source, but unfortunately it is no longer online. I think (but am not sure it was in the original charter from 1907). Only the more recent royal charter with the college of medicine is online, where the imperial institute was torn down already.

You are correct in terms of the 1845 date. I do not think it was when it was planned per se, I do not know the date of the planning. It was the date when one of the royal colleges was built more technically. I was trying to add an 1845 date for you though somewhere (and the royal colleges to the same sentence too) because of your critique that the early constituent colleges date was not included. I had thought that sentence may be a good place for the initial date if you had a suggestion. These were the vision of Prince Albert around that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecurry1 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I get why the date was put in there as it was to try and link the date and the founding of the colleges and area, it just claimed that was when the area was started, which is not the case (I believe it was done by the Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851 after the exhibition) and I don't think the introduction should be misleading. In terms of the institute, I cannot find where it says what you think on the link you gave — "The Imperial Institute and several Royal Colleges (which would later merge to become ICL)" I believe is talking solely about the colleges merging, and all of them being built, otherwise it goes against every other source I have come across (see the citations in the History section), including the well sourced Wikipedia article on the Institute. Also, the Institute clearly didn't merge, it was kept a completely separate endeavour until 2015, not even being renamed until 1958. Just because the site was shared, doesn't mean that they are the same, as I have stated the University of London used the Institute's site as its home between 1900 and 1937. I'm not trying to be problematic, I'm just trying to make sure we actually go with the facts — if you can find sources (hopefully not with clickbait titles?) that prove any form of merger, then sure, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Shadowssettle_(talk) 19:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi ShadowSettle, that is fine in changing the date to 1851, I was asking for your suggestion on the date.

For the Imperial Insitute, I have not seen any sources that say they clearly didnt merge. I was under the impression they did in the 1907 royal charter. Could you please inform me of your sources for that? Also, I do not think it is true that it was an institution seperate from Imperial that just sat on its side. Please explain how Imperial College London got its name from an insitutition sitting just on its side that is seperate from the school. The imperial institute was part of the university of london as was imperial. I think the source for this is Imperial's 1907 royal charter, not the new 2007 royal charter. We can take out the imperial institute from that sentence if you prefer (as your original sentence had it), as it is very hard to source accurate information about the institute. i think it was from that royal charter in 1907 by the king though. The previous not good source I found quickly was, 5 things you did not know about Imperial College London, where under a heading It was founded by Prince Albert as part of Albertopolis, "The Imperial Institute and several Royal Colleges (which would later merge to become ICL)[4]." I am pretty sure it was part of it, thats is why I was suggesting the 1907 royal charter as a better primary source. At the same time, sourcing is very hard and the history of the school indeed can lead to confusion. I do not think they were seperate though, thus the namesake Imperial, which makes common sense. Also the Imperial Institute is listed on the university history webpage, although I wish it was in more detail to further clarify these things.

Hi Aloneinthewild, Yes, you are correct that the city and guilds building had merged also. i think this was a part of the same 1907 royal charter. Also that the Imperial institute had some research activity and did not continue being demolished. The city and guilds building was a different building than the Imperial Institute. It was also demolished and is where the business school now stands. Indeed, the history of the school is a little harder to follow, and I wish that it was written up better. Thats why I think the university resources should be used for the body to describe its history so that everyone is on the same page, [5].

Hi ShadowSettle, I know you are techically accurate which I appreciate. I agree with you on the date, that is more technically accurate. I am trying to understand your sources for the Imperial Institute? Where are you getting that information. I think you are factually accurate, and that way we can get on the same page. There is currently some confusion, so I am trying to understand better your perspective as well, so we can be on the same page on it.

My problem is I think you may have the wrong understanding about the facts of the events, but I don't want to be rude at all, and I may myself be mistaken.

1. The Imperial Institute was not part of the University of London, not ever. They did share the same site as far as I know from 1900 and 1937. A quick search confirms no reference to them ever being the same institution, and it is never referenced on the institutes Wikipedia page.
2. The institute was also not merged into the college, rather the site on which in sits, and possibly some of its mission (I don't know, and wouldn't put in in the article without sources saying it did happen), were taken over by the college, and they share some history (hence why I agree the institute deserves mentioning in the introduction)
3. The City and Guilds College was not merged in 1907, rather 3 years later (see citations in the article's history section or click here). As I do not know where I can find the 1907 charter, I am unaware if this was mentioned then, or later. In the intrest of representing what is known, I suggest we keep away from any statement suggesting it did merge in 1907.

Please don't ask me to prove something didn't happen (although with the Institute it's pretty easy to read up on the citations from the history section and the institute's article to see that it is a very separate entity) claims in articles must be backed up, so what is claimed did happen is what needs to be referenced. Sorry if that comes across as a rant, Merry Day-After-Boxing-Day Shadowssettle_(talk) 22:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I thought your revert to the previous version was fair until we can further clarify.

My problem was that I thought you were suggesting rewriting the intro and history section based on an incomplete understanding of the history. For example: you did not know the Imperial Institute was important to Imperials history, yet there is a reason it is the colleges name. That is why I suggested to clarify for both of us, so we can get on the same page. I have attached technically accurate facts regarding the points you just listed.

1. Point 1, Imperial Institute was definitely a part of the University of London. It's in the Commonwealth_Institute Wiki. It is listed there in describing the Imperial Institute.
2. Point 2, I finally found additional information as a source for the Imperial Institute being part of the college from the University of London wiki. "The Imperial Institute Building in South Kensington, home to the university from 1900 to 1937." This should explain the imperial institute more.
3. Point 3, you are correct that the city and guilds college moved later. At the same time, it was also in the 1907 royal charter too.
4. Point 4, I am not sure what we are arguing about. I think we are both just trying to get on the same page with the facts, so sources will help as well as clarifying assumptions. Best, Mikecurry1 (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

1. No, it doesn't say that anywhere, and my reading would suggest it wasn't (could you please state where you think the Commonwealth Institute article states as such????)
2. Yes, they shared the same site between 1900-1937 (as I stated, this is not new information) however, as Univ. Londin. physical presence (excl. colleges) was not very big, just the offices for the federated system, this wouldn't have taken over the entire buildings I wouldn't think, as the Institute didn't move out until much later (source). This however doesn't prove any institutional system.
3. You might be right, it would be useful to have access to a copy of that — right now I have no sources (what is needed to put anything in an encyclopedia article) to indicate either way, if you have some, I'd love to see them too.
4. Can you please give your sources for your claims overall, I'd like to see them, and do you see why I'd prefer sources to prove things did happen

The facts as far as I'm aware:

1. The Imperial Institute was related in terms of the shared South Kensington program, and sharing the same site. The reason for the sharing of the name can only be presumed by common sense: They share the same site and history, so it was named as such? One was integrated into the other? I would say probably to the former, most unlikely to the latter (the Commonwealth Institute article doesn't state this anywhere, I don't see where you're looking?), but without sources, I wouldn't say either in an article.
2. The City and Guilds college joined in 1910. (source) Was it part of the original charter? I don't know — without a copy, or a reliable source clearly stating is was (rather than nonchalantly stating it was merged) I would not want to put whether it was in the charter in the article.

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) 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. 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

References

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)

I think we can do something similar to your proposal for that 1907 sentence to include the royal colleges you thought were relevant there. Yeah, the UofL bit, I think lets just leave the university of London part out, where a sentence could be in the history section. It was not in the intro b4 this either. I think if I were reading the intro I would feel overwhelmed with facts, so the royal colleges part sounded better to include how you wrote it. We could include your 1907 sentence as you wrote it.

In terms of the city and guilds college, yes, it was incorporated into the royal charter in 1907. City and Guilds of London Institute example: "In 1907, the latter two colleges were incorporated by Royal Charter into the Imperial College of Science and Technology and the CGLI Central Technical College was renamed the City and Guilds College in 1907,[4] but not incorporated into Imperial College until 1910."

So I think that 1907 sentence can simply list the three schools "Royal College of Science, Royal School of Mines, and City and Guilds College." That way the intro would not need to add this additional fact of the 1910 added complication, as I think the added detail also fits better into the body's history section.

I am fine with your 1907 sentence and think that could be included as such. I think the UofL sentence would be better in the history section of the body as I do not think it is needed in the intro if we are including the royal college part, and it has not been in the intro for along time anyways. Also, to consider I did like Aloneinthewild's 1907 sentence version which I thought also read very well. I will show you two version of his sentence to consider for this sentence too. Any of the three sentences yours or his would work for me.

Aloneinthewild's sentence was "In 1907, the college was granted a royal charter incorporating the Royal School of Mines and Royal College of Science."

We could do something similar to his sentence if you prefer to list the City and Guilds College also.

"In 1907, the college was granted a royal charter incorporating the Royal School of Mines, Royal College of Science, and City and Guilds College.

So you can choose any of the 1907 sentence's you prefer and insert any one into the wiki for further editing. :) Mikecurry1 (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The second sentence proposal sounds quite reasonable to include the royal colleges there also in that sentence. We may want to lead that Prince Albert proposed a district for arts and science instead of a cultural district as it sets up the museums and colleges following it, but either way works. Please input the royal colleges from your edit of the second sentence into the wiki too.Mikecurry1 (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Whilst I disagree that "... In 1907, the latter two colleges were incorporated by Royal Charter into the Imperial College of Science and Technology and the CGLI Central Technical College was renamed the City and Guilds College in 1907,[4] but not incorporated into Imperial College until 1910." coming right after " on the site were the Royal School of Mines and the Royal College of Science. ..." shows any involvement of the CGC in the 1907 royal charter, the source it quotes there actually does imply they merged (so we have found a source to back this up! It is one I had read earlier for writing the history section (and cited there), but only for its 19th, rather than 20th-century implications), so we can state that with references that it was merged (although we definitely can't say it was incorporated, as this relatively reliable source clearly states it wasn't). In terms of wording, I am generally ambivalent as long as the meaning is accurate, so if Aloneinthewild (talk · contribs)'s variant is preferred, then good (as long as it's slightly corrected) "In 1907, the college was granted a royal charter, merging the Royal School of Mines, Royal College of Science, and City and Guilds College". As all three editors currently discussing this seem to be fine with this variant, I have gone ahead and integrated it into the article.  Done

On a separate note, I'm glad we seem to be agreed on that nothing shows that the Imperial Institute was either part of UoL or had any kind of incorporation into or with the college, and that we can show that City & Guilds did at least in some form merge with the college in 1907, as you'd suggested. I'm still looking for better language on trying to tie the Imperial Institute sentence ("His wife, Queen Victoria, laid the foundation stone for the Imperial Institute in 1888.") into the article more, right now it reads a little jolted, seemingly unclear on how it fits in with the rest of the article, but I haven't thought of a nice way of rewording it yet. I also think maybe adding a "..., and in 2007 the college left the University of London, having been a member since its foundation." might help to try and incorporate the UoL into the introduction in a less prominent place, keeping the event to something in the correct timeline order.

I'm happy with that wording Shadowssettle, thanks for your research to clear this up Aloneinthewild (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also happy with the wording Shadowssettle, and we have formed a good consensus by all three of us for this first paragraph change. When people try to edit this later we can cite this consensus. I think there are a lot of facts in the intro's first pargarph now. So to make it easier to read for some people who are not as technical, we maintain the level of facts as is without adding more facts, and thus keep the new royal college sentence we have consensus on and we don't use the UofL in the intro which was not there anyways for a long time - that could be described in the body's history section. We both tried the UofL in the intro as a test, but we were both not happy with it our tests in the intro, and we both like the royal colleges better now in its place, so it can better fit in the body. Also, if you want to change the second sentence per your proposed change with the royal colleges you are welcome to implement your proposed change for that if you want. It is not adding anything new topic as it is discussed in this 1907 sentence so is not adding additional facts in my opinion, so you can put this in per the proposal if you want. In terms of the Imperial Institute sentence you can improve it to make it less jolted if you can do so.   Part of it though is I think there is a little confusion of the Imperial Institute's place in Imperial College London's history besides granting the university its name. It's important to consider the significance of founder, the Queen, as other good articles also state the founders and royalty who inspired the school. Columbia University, McGill University. Besides that I am not sure what to do with that sentence, and it sounded interesting to me as it was. If you can improve that sentence you are welcome too. You are welcome to propose changes to the first pargapraph if you want? I think rather than spend time on the first paragraph, the second and third paragraph probably could use more work as they had not been discussed as much. We had made some improvements on the second paragpraph quickly. There were two consensus agreements I know of in these paragraphs, the diversity sentence (we just made) and using the three rankings. In the third paragraph it was previously suggested that the alumni sentence could be improved. Would either of you have any ideas for that alumni sentence on what to write for this sentence?  Mikecurry1 (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I added the 2nd sentence proposal from Shadowsettle for the first paragraph about royal colleges. Let me know if you prefer this version, which may smooth the joltedness or the previous version by connecting the thoughts of the royal colleges and imperial institute in the next two sentences. Either this version or the previous works for me. Best, Mikecurry1 (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I also think it may be possible to switch the words for a date in the second sentence, "Its founder" to "In 1851" per AloneintheWild's excellent edit. I have found some sources for this. [6][7][8] "The birth of Albertopolis – like the V&A – is rooted in 1851 and the enormously successful Great Exhibition, which was held in nearby Hyde Park. Organised by Prince Albert and Sir Henry, it was the first international exhibition of manufactured products and was extremely influential on art and design education. Profits from the event were used by the Royal Commission of 1851 to purchase a group of objects that became the founding collection of the V&A and also to buy a plot of land south of Hyde Park. It was on this land that Prince Albert and Sir Henry’s ambitions to develop a campus of museums, colleges and educational institutions that promoted the arts and sciences was realised." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecurry1 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Imperial College London (officially Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine) is a public research university located in London, United Kingdom. In 1851, Prince Albert, envisioned 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. 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.

References

I don't particularly like the 1851 format, he probably envisioned it before then, when exactly we couldn't say, it's the date of the Exhibition, but I like how that is now. On the other hand, I think moving the Imperial Institue to the end of the list is great, it does make it flow better (I think it could be better but it's a small but very noticeable improvement). Shadowssettle_(talk) 21:08, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Glad you think that improves the flow. Then if that is the case that he we do not know the exact date he started thinking about his vision, we could probably edit that sentence slightly so it is accurate per your point. We could write something in the sentence like he began building his vision then in 1851 rather than his vision was in 1851. I thought Aloneinthewild's idea was to write the date of the founding of Albertopolis in the article, which I thought was a good one.

Also, to explain why I wrote the grammar as such without the words several and some words capitalized as I know you are into technical accuracy. I have attached sources as well. The capitalization of the word royal can be quite confusing. The words Royal Colleges and Royal Charter are capitalized as they are a King or Queen's order or act. Orders, Acts, and laws are capitalized such as in Royal Decree No 24. (Section 3.38)[9] This is noted online in the capitalization of spelling in the Cambridge Dictionary - [10] and on UK government sites [11]. Also, the word several b4 Royal Colleges is not needed since it is not doing much as an adjective, since the "s" at the end of the word colleges denotes there are more than one college, so the adjective becomes redundant. This creates for more concise writing, which is one of the pillars of good article status you noted. I hope that this helps explains why I had the grammar as I did there, which I think is technically accurate for the intro.

Imperial College London (officially Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine) is a public research university located in London, United Kingdom. In 1851, 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. 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.

Mikecurry1 (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

edits: In 1851, began building his vision, Royal Colleges, Royal Charter

References

I was unaware of this rule for Royal Charters and Colleges, thank-you for informing me! I can't find a reference as such for the use with Royal Colleges, but you're right, it does seem to be the custom.

A suggestion, how about just "began"? It is less definitive, just tying it in with the 1851 commission and Albertopolis. (I have also made a change to make it a little less monotonous, as a separate suggestion, "In YYYY... In YYYY... In YYYY...")

Imperial College London (officially Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine) 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. 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.

I have italicised additions and replaced wording and struck deletions

Shadowssettle_(talk) 18:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Hey Shadowssettle, I was just noticing in the history section you wrote the orgins were in 1845, could we use that date for the sentence? That would be consistent with the Royal College of Science

Yeah, looks good what you wrote in the second sentence, perhaps we should use 1845, which is the consistent prince albert started the royal college of science (per your history section). We could use your citation for that from the history section. Cheers, Mikecurry1 (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking about it and began what? It needs another word following it, rather than just began, as it is unclear what he began. Perhaps, instead of began, built or another word? I think "began upon building his vision for". I also did like the word its founder in that sentence, as I believe I added that word in a long time ago to the sentence as a descriptor. At the same time, I think Aloneinthewilds edit to incorporate the year is cleaner, and better explains historical timing, while keeping that sentence concise, so it superseeded that word I added. Similarly, your royal college edit is much better than the last version of the intro. Perhaps:

In 1845, Prince Albert began upon 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. (citation - shadowsettle from history section - 1845 college of chemistry[12])

I tried to incorporate the edit you wrote, and also this edit with began upon building, but neither looked as good. Perhaps we can think of another idea if needed, but I thought it was written well by AloneintheWild in his previous version and maybe we are just beeing a little too picky in critiquing this intro.

The last sentence edit is combining two seperate ideas, which creates a run on sentence. I think it is easier to read as two sentences. Yes, I agree with your smart critique that it is a little monotonous and perhaps that could be improved. Overall I think the second and third paragraphs need more attention though then the first (which has been more thoroughly hashsed out over time) as I have been trying to suggest, where there is probably more room for more significant improvements per our time such as our new diversity sentence.

Wish we were editing this in the same room as it would be easier.

That's not accurate, the Royal College of Chemistry was one of the prince's endeavours, but to begin with not anything to do with the developments in South Kensington, originally located at Hannover Square near Oxford Circus. Thus it's not accurate to claim this as a date for the South Kensington development. Could we keep that as is, using 1851 for the South Ken development is fine. Also, I don't see you're problem with "begin" on its own. "I began the presentation". "The programme begins at 9 o'clock". To me it reads fine?

If you do want to use the 1845 date, we could do something along these lines

Imperial College London (officially Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine) is a public research university located in London, United Kingdom. In 1845, Prince Albert supported the foundation of the Royal College of Chemistry, the earliest predecessor to the college, before building his vision for a cultural area in South Kensington 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. 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 replaced wording and struck deletions

References

otherwise can we keep it to the 1851 date, which is accurate for Albertopolis, whereas 1845 isn't (although arguably 1850 might also be accurate with the foundation of the 1851 Commission that year). Shadowssettle_(talk) 21:18, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, we can use 1851. It sounds good after your edits. We are both being a little overly picky. I am also not sure what the problem was with Aloneinthewilds sentence as he wrote it. It sounds like you are still thinking about those few words, "work on his vision," if you or anyone thinks of a preferable way to say that we can use that. It sounds good as you have it.

I liked the new second paragraph changes we were making. Several sentences and ideas were added (diversity sentence, focus of the university, hospitals), I am just cleaning up the grammar a bit. So you are aware of the reasons for the edit, the first sentence is a bit of a run on sentence currently where there are two seperate ideas. I also dont think any use of a park was agreed on for the intro; I think Hyde Park adjacent would be prefereble because it is an international landmark for an encylopedia, but currently we do not have consensus for a parks use. The second sentence could be more concise in explaining Imperial's hospitals, per good article guidelines. My edits are very minor fixes on grammar, and maintaining your central ideas added we agreed on. I just thought I would explain the edits here, so you do not take the edits personally. Overall, I liked the new ideas for the second paragraph and so I am just cleaning these ideas grammar up for their implementation. Mikecurry1 (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

In the third paragraph and edit was created to say and 1st in London. Before it read (1st in London). I think in the middle of a very long sentence listing global rankings "and 1st in London" without parenthesis sounded clunky and awkward. I thought perhaps we should take out that part about 1st in London. Do you have an opinion? If the sentence has 1st in London, I think it would be easier to read in parenthesis, though I am not sure it is needed to say 1st in London this sentence anyways. I think it reads cleaner this way after our new international diversity sentence too to focus on global rankings. Let me know if you have an opinion on this. Mikecurry1 (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I think our edits and discussion made a big improvement on the intro overall Shadowssettle, Aloneinthewild, so it is reading much better now. Mikecurry1 (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Can I firstly try to make it clear I don't think I take things personally, it's just that a lot of changes recently just miss the truth, which I try and fix. As long as there are no semantic changes, and the writing is not in noticeably poor taste, I don't mind too much, unless I have a good reason. If you find your minor wording edits were seemingly reverted by me, it is possibly because they came in a stream of edits including some which began to mis-portray the exact nature of the facts, and I reverted to an earlier version.

I agree "work on his vision" may have a better way of being put, but I don't quite know what that is. The majority consensus right now I believe, looking at Aloneinthewild (talk · contribs)'s comment from long ago and considering my opposition, is not to include the parks here in the article. I mean, there are already more important things that are being excluded for the sake of brevity and conciseness – the parks are quite peripheral. Also, would you expect the universities of Cambridge or Durham's articles to include parks not institutionally connected to the University this high up, or any other university article at this level to cover it in the main intro? Landmarks aren't necessarily important for this kind of article, did you know that Kensington Palace is just up the road too? Should all articles about institutions focus the introductions much on what is around than what the institution itself is? Here's the silly extreme I can take this point to, just for fun, but I hope it shows my concerns, if exaggerated *slightly*... (please don't take offence, I'm just going to the far extreme here to show why I don't like including random attractions nearby in an article of an independently important institution like this, and also note I am happy with the article's introduction as is. Yes the following will be a poor taste strawman argument)

The Palace of Westminster, across the river from the London Eye and the London Aquarium, is the meeting place of the House of Commons and the House of Lords,(keep it concise) the two houses of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Commonly known as the Houses of Parliament after its occupants, the Palace lies on the north bank of the River Thames in the City of Westminster, in central London, England(removing this helps flow with following addition). The city is also home to Buckingham Palace, and the Natural History, Science, and V&A museums. To the north-west lies St. James's Park, Green Park, and Hyde Park, where the annual Winter Wonderland(nationally well-known) is held every winter.

It seems like it detracts from the point of the article, to cover facts about Imperial not the neighbourhood, when we're already putting museums this high up. Parks are already covered in the campus section which is where I agree they probably should be covered. Focus should probably move to other parts of the article right now. Can I also ask that you refrain please from saying things like "so you don't take it personally" and "make your mark", which can come across as implying I'm not grounded in my edits and looking to win. If you make grammar edits, feel free to just leave them in your edit summaries, or just say why you did them here. I have never presumed anything of the sort of you in my responses, and have been clear when I was trying to just get the facts straight or if I thought there was a disagreement to that end, and seeing as my edits have all been in cause of good reason, mostly factual, I hope you can see how such comments may be construed as a possibly a little bit of something like a WP:PA. I don't really mind, and take in good faith such a implication was entirely unintentional, but I would prefer it if you kept away from those kinds of suggestions, without good reason. Thanks. Shadowssettle_(talk) 23:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

That was a great edit Shadowssettle! Sorry, if you took that as a personal attack, I just meant so you don't take it personally, because you noted boxing match. I just said so you dont take it personally, because you just inserted 3 sentences into the second paragraph, and my grammar edit was reverted (probably unintentionally during the course of those edits). So I did not want you to take it personally that I was editing the second paragraph where you recently added too, just that I was trying to edit the grammar of the whole pargraph generally. It was also late at night during the edit, so that may have made one or two words off in my talk page statement I wrote quickly, but it was not meant to be personal at all. I am sorry, if you felt that was a personal what I said. I normally speak with I, you, we in person, rather than in 3rd peson. I never meant that as an attack, but it is probably hard for me to express my tone over writing too. Nothing personal was meant. I am honestly sorry about that. Honestly, I think you have been doing really great editing, and am happy that you have made the intro and article much better through your edits and photos and our discussions!!! So if anything I would want to say thank you very much!!! Mikecurry1 (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I had presumed that it was probably me misreading tone into it, and know its hard to convey tone across text, taking what you'd said with good faith, just wanted to clear it up. Think we should probably wrap up this particular discussion then, if there's not much else to discuss and no objections. Feel free to make more improvements to it at any time as always, there's still a bit that could maybe be done better, we can open a new topic with more specific scope if anyone's edits become controversial (this one has dragged along quite a bit). It's good we've come to a consensus on a better introduction, I hope we can all be glad we are all been able to come up with something we all think is a good improvement Shadowssettle_(talk) 01:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sorry again if that was miscommunicated late at night. It was probably hard for me to convey tone over the wiki, and maybe the tone was not understood as I meant to say it in. Yes, it could be improved further, but it is much much better because of your editing. I think you have been doing great and am very happy with your excellent edits! Mikecurry1 (talk) 01:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I am glad you like the intro much more now as a big improvement noting, "It's good we've come to a consensus on a better introduction, I hope we can all be glad we are all been able to come up with something we all think is a good improvement."   Thanks again for improving it through discussions! Mikecurry1 (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, what is your opinion for the alumni sentence? Should we include something from the wiki article that is different that is more practical than what is listed there currently, such as from the graduate employment prospects or entrepreneurship? "According to both the 2016 Guardian University Guide and the Complete University Guide, students were ranked as having the top employment prospects among UK universities.[87][88]" or there is a line about New York Times graduate prospects. Check out Stanford University, MIT, Caltech alumni section of their leads.

I checked out the palace of westminster article after you attached that, and the articles current lead was intersting. I can see that your attachment of this was originally meant as satirical and funny, and an intro like the palace of westminster like the one attached would clearly not be supported for an encyclopedia. Since then that articles lead is very good and has a nice geographical context. Perhaps we can include some context geographically too here? (such as the one below.) Would you have ideas about what would be more appropriate to include if we were to include a geographical context?

The Palace of Westminster is the meeting place of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the two houses of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Commonly known as the Houses of Parliament after its occupants, the Palace lies on the north bank of the River Thames in the City of Westminster, in central London, England.

Fair, but, I have realised the overall problem with the choice of such article. The comparable article would actually be the Parliament of the United Kingdom, for that is the institution, whereas a South Kensington Campus article would be more comparable to the actual buildings. Also, if for example Hyde Park, or a notable river, ran right through the middle of the college, or the college was built overlooking the park (and thus the park played an instrumental role to the design and construction, and the life of the college), then I could see why, but it's a nearby park, nothing more. If the article on the University of Cambridge had a mention about it being built along the Cam, then that would make sense – many colleges lie on, or across the river, and a lot of famous university sights lie along the river (as do the Houses of Parliament). However, Hyde Park has no constructional link and its not part of the campus, it's not even the closest notable park, Kensington Gardens is closer to the campus (see maps). Yes, there are a few union clubs whose websites indicate they use the parks, but I would argue the parks are far from central to an introduction. I would strongly argue the parks should be kept to the campus section. If we put something like Hyde Park in, should we also put closer Kensington Gardens, which has a slightly stronger claim for inclusion from my perspective (still not a good claim though, I don't think), what about Kensington Palace as well? Suddenly this isn't an introduction to the university, but an introduction to Albertopolis (with the inclusion of the museums already). Also, should we include Queen's Lawn (again) and Prince's Gardens? These actually do form part of the college, and looking at imagery and statements in this article, one can see that they're quite important to the social life (the later around which 800+ rooms of college accommodation lie). I believe they could, they're part of the college and important to it's social operation. (not arguing for their inclusion, but I think they're more central to it that the parks mentioned earlier). So now we have an article introduction talking mostly about parks. Yes, this is a classic slippery-slope argument (so not to be taken too seriously), but I do believe putting Hyde Park in is further down the list of important things to include then most of the other ideas just mentioned. So can we just keep that to the South Kensington Campus section, please?

In terms of the alumni prospects suggestion, I think that sounds fine, although looking at the other articles, they've provided slightly more concrete facts (money, or based directly on percentage in PhD courses). I don't know and don't mind, and I think it should be okay, but also okay not to – you could probably put something in now and if anyone objects then discuss. Shadowssettle_(talk) 12:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, yeah, it seems like there may be more important things than geography to include.

In terms of improving the alumni part, I'll see if I can find something and that can be adjusted. I'll probably aim more towards the mass entrepreneurship the campus does from the article or student graduate prospects, unless there are other ideas. Mikecurry1 (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

The reason I removed turing is because I used the universities page for facts and figures of awards. [13]. Of course, turing is an important award yet since only 1 turing award was won historically, it is not that distinctive about the school. So I just used the universities award winner list about how they describe the school as preferable.

Also, you just corrected my spelling on Reuters, that is how the university lists it here: [14] ;Mikecurry1 (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok shadowssettle, thats fine re turing award to keep Mikecurry1 (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Shadowssettle, Do these articles help you think of a better word choice? As you said yourself the current word choice suggested was not that good. I just want the proposed change to be preferable to the original version already there. Then I am okay with it. Currently I think think the original version is preferable, but I am very open to your thoughts on this to make it as accurate as possible. It may be accurate enough for a summary too, considering synthesis is never quite as completely accurate as the full detailed explanations. [15][16][17]