Talk:University College London/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Mascot

Was going to post this last night, before Wikipedia errored out!

Currently the article contains an unreferenced section about "the warrior". Now as far as I know this is a load of rubbish (but I'm up for being proved wrong). The section should be re-written to be about Phineas - here's a starting point re sources (not sure we dare use the King's website as a source for the UCL article though :o ): http://uclu.org/system/files/attachments/phineas-1.pdf, http://www.kingscollections.org/exhibitions/archives/mayhem/origins/mascots, https://alumni.kcl.ac.uk/reggie-history/mascotry-is-born. Sadly I don't have time to rewrite this section right now, but will probably get there eventually if no one else does. GoddersUK (talk) 12:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth Saary

I was trying to de-orphan the stub Elizabeth Saary. Since his BBC profile page says that she graduated from UCL in 1999 with a degree in Geography, I added her to "entertainers, musicians, composers and filmakers" (which was probably not the appropriate category) with a supporting source. That edit, however, was reverted because she is not "particularly notable". That's fine, but I it made me wonder if there are specific selection criteria in place per WP:LSC to determine whether an alumni is notable enough to be mentioned. I searched this talk page's archives and did find some general discussion on alumni, but could not find anything about any selection criteria. So, I am just curious as to how such a thing is being determined. Thanks in advance. -Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The lead

Same as the case of Imperial College, I suggest we've to discuss what to add or drop in the lead and how to organize those pieces of info. Biomedicinal (Contact) 06:04, 6 February 2015‎

The lead structure of this article is longstanding and the lead provides a good introduction to the topic and summary of the article, without indulging in the empty promotion found in the introduction to many university articles. Please can you give specific suggestions for changes rather than simply starting a discussion.

Your changes to the lead of Imperial College do not appear to have been an improvement to the text and have actually introduced factual inaccuracies, such as stating that it has a research income of £822m rather than a total income of that amount. Please resist the urge to wish to make changes for changes sake. English also does not appear to be your first language and the quality of your writing reflects this. Whilst this should not stop you editing it should make you pause and seek the views of others before making edits to the long-standing leads of articles.92.3.67.59 (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

As stated on that talk page, the structure is what I've concerned with the most. I suggest to put the info. of alumni in a separate paragraph when placing that of museums & affiliations into the "academics" (together with biomedical research) & "admin./organization" sections respectively in order to follow the flow of the article. This isn't a must but, in my opinion, a clearer way to present the ideas since the lead is the background. Perhaps rankings can be generalized and shortened as they form just part of the "academics" section, which contains other kinds of info. (e.g. admission & libraries). Yep, English isn't my mother tongue so I've been always revising my comments (assisted by Cambridge Dictionary Online...) to minimize the mistakes made. Others' opinions certainly help and that's why I urged a discussion to find a better way of expression - hope the trouble posed isn't that detrimental. Biomedicinal (Contact) 15:58, 6 February 2015

Thanks for your reply. I guess the question is why would moving things around in the lead be an improvement. Although the lead doesn't exactly follow the order of the article it does have a logic to it and seems to cover the key points. Regarding rankings it is true that articles of some other peer institutions do not give precise ranking numbers in the lead. UCL is a bit unusual in two ways however. Firstly the rankings are quite divergent. It is ranked 5th in the world by QS but 22nd in the world by THE. The world ranking averages out around 15th. It is misleading and promotional to do as the UCL website does and simply give the QS ranking, although this is undoubtedly a notable fact. Secondly UCL is unusual because unlike say Harvard or Cambridge it has grown rapidly both in terms of actual size and reputation over a fairly short period, and especially over the past 10 years. Whilst readers may assume - correctly - that Harvard has a certain position in rankings, they are likely to be much less correct in their assumptions about UCL. UCL is in fact generally not that well know in comparison to its actual standing and there is therefore more of a case for the lead to place the institution in a context of its peers than for some better known instituions.92.3.67.59 (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I got it. But why don't we run the whole article in that way if it's more logical? Yes, there're other possible styles of organization and, thus, it'll be less controversial if the lead and the rest are consistent. I think it's just like the preview page of a book which is supposed to tell you how the ideas are presented.

I absolutely agree that we should provide the full picture of rankings to readers but my view is to keep them concise and precise. We have dozens of league tables nowadays besides ARWU (main rankings), QS & THE (main rankings), including ARWU (alternative ranking), THE (reputation rankings) & US News (global version) (previously collaborated with QS), let alone disciplinary or regional ones. I don't deny their role, to a certain extent, as measures of progression but they don't deserve that much space there. That's why I tried to generalize all the results in the lead of the Imperial page, although another user highly disagreed and reverted my changes. In my opinion, it'll be clearer to read if the lead (as the background) contains less details which ought to be retained in the related sections. Biomedicinal (Contact) 17:04, 7 February 2015

I absolutely agree with Biomedicinal regarding Imperial's page. Happy with his changes to rankings there.

Please note some of the changes in the lead. which now provides a brief about the university + its reputation in the first para. This paragraph appears concise and uncontroversial and in line with other lead articles. Additionally the first para makes a detailed description of the rankings in subsequent paragraphs of the lead superfluous. Instead a more detailed description of the alumni does a better job at describing both its long history and the standing of the institution. These changes thus address the concern that without the rankings readers may not be able to get a full picture of UCL's position given its name recognition as an independent institution from University of London has increased only in the last two decades, and also streamline the lead. 86.175.97.195 (talk) 10:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The lead as it stood contained the claim the UCL was the first to admit women on equal terms to men. This is disputed, so the fact of the dispute needs to be noted or the claim needs to be removed entirely - it certainly should not stand as a fact without any qualification. I have edited it to note that the claim is disputed (references are in the body of the article).Robminchin (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Student population figures

Does anyone know where the figure for 36,000 came from? The inline citation takes me to a table which states the population is 30,551 (2014-15) and the Higher Education Statistics Authority (HESA) listed it at 28,430 for 2013-14. I understand there is a hidden comment in the lead, which says the 36,000 figure includes the School of Pharmacy and Institute of Education. My question is why? HESA lists the Institute of Education as a separate institution in 2013/14 and I understand the merge went ahead in 2014. But where is the source for the 36,000 figure? Jolly Ω Janner 03:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd imagine someone included the institute of pharmacy statistics as its enrollment is about 6000. For clarity I've reverted to the HESA stats, I'd imagine the next update by HESA will be more accurate. Until then we have no source for the figure and might confuse readers. Aloneinthewild (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

2015/16 is actually 38,000 per [1]. The number given in the article is therefore a significant undercount.92.4.84.202 (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

As the HESA stats are based on statistical returns from the universities, the question is why are UCL giving a lower number to HESA than they are publishing on their website? (Does the number from UCL's website include overseas campuses and/or students on the London International Programme? Students studying exclusively overseas aren't included in the HESA number.) It's not possible to say whether the HESA number is an undercount or the website number is an overcount, but the HESA number is consistent across all UK institutions so it would be better to stick with that. Robminchin (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150119210953/http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2014.html to http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2014.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511100108/http://www.chasecareer.net/news_detail.php?id=61 to http://www.chasecareer.net/news_detail.php?id=61

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

EDI results errors

It strikes me that the amount of text recently added to this article in relation to marking errors at the Eastman Dental Institute is undue in length. I will not attempt to reduce this myself, but welcome the thoughts of others.

This article relates to the whole of UCL. The EDI is only a small part of the university, and the incident is in turn a small part of the long history of the EDI. Even in the EDI article such a length of text on this matter would a be pretty full and generous account. Here it seems highly incongrous. Two or three lines at most would seem, objectively, sufficient.80.73.220.190 (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Somewhat to my surprise, I find myself agreeing. The section on the EDI is out of proportion to the weight given to over historical events, which are generally limited to a single paragraph. It should be remembered that there is a separate page for history, so the history section is supposed to be a short summary. The EDI section would be much more in keeping on the main History page, I would support moving the current text there (with a suitable edit summary to point people back here for the edit history) and replacing it with a summary paragraph. Robminchin (talk) 02:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I quite agree: this is a typical case of recentism, a perennial problem on Wikipedia. This was an ephemeral and, within the greater scheme of things, trivial incident, and certainly doesn't merit such detailed coverage here. It is fully covered (in the same words – i.e. the text has been copypasted) on the UCL Eastman Dental Institute page, which is where it belongs. I would suggest that it merits a brief one- or two-sentence mention on the History of University College London page, and should be deleted entirely here, where the "history" should be limited to significant changes of policy or direction with long-term repercussions. GrindtXX (talk) 12:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Constitution Unit

10 year WP:DICTDEF / WP:PERMASTUB Widefox; talk 11:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Is there anything there to merge? And where would it go on this page? It looks like it was, at one point, a copyright-violating cut-and-paste of the Unit's 'About Us' page, but that was blanked. At the moment, this page details UCL constituent faculties and doesn't go down to department level, but this is a unit within the Department of Political Science, within the Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences - two levels below what is currently covered. There are 27 'Principal Units' within that faculty alone - do we really want to list and describe every unit inside UCL? It looks to me as if it might be better to simply delete the Constitution Unit page, although I'm open to being persuaded otherwise. Robminchin (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The principle of merge and redirect is the decision. The practice of what to merge is, as you say, looking like nothing much to merge but open to editors IMHO. Widefox; talk 12:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I have started to do some work on expanding the article. In my view it is a notable standalone topic with significant third party sources enabling expansion - it's arguably the most important and influential constitutional research unit in the UK.Heathrowterminal6a (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

That's great. I vote we hold off on merging for now at least as there is a reasonable prospect of it becoming a viable stand-alone page. Robminchin (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Colleges and Universities?

Just wondering why the top tier of UK education consists of two universities, and four colleges that are all constituent parts of another university - namely, the University of London? Wouldn't it make sense to say that the Golden Triangle comprises the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and London (and also, as a triangle, it would actually contain three elements)? KoopaCooper (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

A few older references talk about the universities of Oxford, Cambridge and London forming a 'golden triangle', but these days the larger colleges of the University of London function effectively as independent universities (in fact, Imperial College has been legally an independent university for a decade now) - they are funded by the UK government as if they were independent universities, they carry out their own admissions and award their own degrees. Because of this splitting up of the University of London, it would be anachronistic to talk about it being the corner of the triangle. This would also imply inclusion in the triangle of all of the UoL colleges, not just the large research institutions, and the exclusion of Imperial College. Wikipedia should follow the sources, which either name the cities (Oxford, Cambridge, London) or the institutions - which (these days) do not include the University of London. Robminchin (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're right the triangle represents the cities of Oxford, Cambridge, London. The London colleges are very different though, Imperial is no longer part of the University of London, LSE is specialised in economics and political science and University College London has specialisms in medicine - they are different institutes and manage themselves independently. Anyway I wouldn't necessarily say the golden triangle is the 'top tier', other universities such as St Andrews are very good. (or ditto what Rob has just said) Aloneinthewild (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

"UCL is ranked in the top thirty in the world in each of the four major international rankings"

The sentence in the lead shown above has a host of issues:

1. It is unclear what consitutes a "major ranking". In whose opinion? Based on what criteria? What reliable, third party sources are cited to support this opinion?

2. No proper case has been made for why these four rankings have been chosen.

3. ARWU, QS and THES are by far the most prominent international rankings and a case can be made for their being deemed the three major international rankings. However even where only ARWU, QS and THES to be quoted, the phrase "the three major international university rankings" would still be far more accurately written as something like "the three most widely quoted international university rankings - ARWU, QS and THES -"

4. The inclusion of CWTS Leiden raises a number of significant concerns:

i. CWTS is far less widely quoted than ARWU, QS and THES, and no reasonable case can be made for calling it "one of the four major rankings" alongside ARWU, QS and THES - it is no more "major" than, for example, the US News and World Report rankings. It is far less deserving of the epithet "major" than ARWU, QS and THES.

ii. CWTS has within it more than one ranking, there is default ranking, which is based on total number of citations/publications, and also two other adjusted rankings. The ranking which is the default view on the CWTS web site is the one based on volume - http://www.leidenranking.com/ranking/2017/list

iii. Use of the CWTS ranking adjusted for size is a subjective choice.

iv. Use of the CWTS ranking adjusted for size further undermines any case for the selected CWTS ranking being one of the "four major international rankings"

v. The fact that an adjusted version of the CWTS ranking is being quoted isn't even mentioned.

vi. The principle reason given on this talk page for including the CWTS ranking, and within that, the CWTS ranking adjusted for institution size, is that it is included in the rankings table used in Wikipedia articles for UK universities. That is no adequate justification, and certainly no justification for describing CWTS in general as one of the four major rankings - it is not a reliable third party source.

5. The wording "is ranked in the top thirty in the world" is imprecise and misleading. It doesn't tell us that UCL is actually ranked 7th in the world in the most widely quoted ranking (QS). It doesn't tell us that UCL's average ranking across the three most widely quoted rankings - ARWU, QS and THES - is 13th. Leaving aside the above comments as to why CWTS should not be included, and within that, why the use of the CWTS ranking adjusted for size is subjective and not reflective of the default ranking which is most prominent on the CWTS web site - it is factually correct that UCL's rankings across ARWU, QS, THES and the CWTS ranking adjusted for institutional size are within the top 30. It would also be correct to say they are within the top 200. Correct but wholly misleading.

6. A more objective and accurate wording for the sentence in question would be "In the three most widely quoted international university rankings - AWRU, QS and THES - UCL is ranked in the top 16 in the world". This still omits the notable information of the 7th place ranking in QS, which is widely quoted in the media, but is far more precise than the current wording.Richardmountfourd321 (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

See here, wikipedia accepts a number of different systems for global ranking, this helps maintain our Neutral Point of View. You should also read this. Polyamorph (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Huntington’s disease breakthrough

Someone may want to add these in somewhere.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/dec/15/this-may-be-a-turning-point-in-treating-neurodegenerative-diseases

http://www.theweek.co.uk/90345/huntington-s-disease-hope-for-a-cure-following-ground-breaking-trial — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.9.191 (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

At the moment it seems to be a possible breakthrough, but one that is yet to be confirmed. Prof Hardy says it "could be a turning point" and that it is "potentially the biggest advance for neurodegenerative disease in 50 years". This could be historic, but we don't yet know. If it turns out to actually be a turning point and to actually be the biggest advance in 50 years, it should be included, but for now WP:NOTNEWS probably applies. Robminchin (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Racist eugenics conference held at UCL

Many notable British newspaper are currently covering this story:

• UCL launches 'eugenics' probe after it emerges academic held controversial conference for three years on campus
• UCL to investigate eugenics conference secretly held on campus
• University College London under fire over its conferences on ‘eugenics’
• University investigates ‘racist’ eugenics conference held on campus since 2014
• Exposed: London’s eugenics conference and its neo-Nazi links
• University College London launches 'eugenics' probe after controversial conference secretly held on campus
• University to investigate secret eugenics conference on campus attended by Toby Young

According to these articles Toby Young had attended as well a Nazi Emil O. W. Kirkegaard who had defended child rape, lectured at the conference in the past. The UCL have now banned the conference but I cannot find any current follow up. Probably much more to follow. Can anyone help in covering this? WoodChopper (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Also see [2], and [3]. WoodChopper (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't "cover" stories, it is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. While this is currently making the headline, it is unlikely to be a significant event in the history of UCL (particularly as it seems to have been a rogue honorary lecturer, not an official conference) and doesn't warrant extensive coverage in an encyclopedia. Beware also of WP:RECENTISM (already a major problem in the history section here, alas).

What is surprising is that there is no mention in this article of eugenics, and Galton is only mentioned under "museums and collections". This would seem to be a major omission of a significant part of UCL's history (there is a section in the History of University College London article). Robminchin (talk) 05:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"The London Conference on Intelligence was said to have been run secretly for at least three years by James Thompson, an honorary senior lecturer at the university, including contributions from a researcher who has previously advocated child rape." [4]. The eugenics conference had been going on annually at the university for a number of years. This is clearly significant and is more than a presentation by a "rogue honorary lecturer" like you suggest. WoodChopper (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I meant that it was organised by a rogue honorary lecturer, and not an official university conference. If the university had secretly been endorsing a eugenics conference, that would be a lot more serious. The question for this article is whether the event is encyclopedic, not just that it is significant but that it is significant in the history and development of UCL. If the only lasting change is a tightening of the room booking system (which seems likely), then it's not encyclopedic. Additionally, this article only contains the most notable posts of UCL's history, as there is a fuller article at History of University College London. To me, this conference would seem to belong in the section on eugenics in that article rather than on the main article, but I'd be interested in hearing what others think. Robminchin (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes I will wait until what other users say. The UCL has responded though with an official statement [5], as I understand it there is going to be a follow-up investigation. I guess waiting a while would be the best thing. WoodChopper (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Rankings section

I've reverted the large scale and undiscussed deletions made to the rankings section by Aloneinthewild. The content is useful and providing the rankings for each faculty avoids selectivity and cherry picking. Grousemoor124 (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok the ranking section, in my opinion, is too large. It's a problem we have on other articles. I don't see how a giant wall of text saying every ranking of departments is useful. Far better to summarise this information. That UCL is top 60 something in natural sciences doesn't seem useful information. Ideally we would create sub-articles to keep this article at a reasonable length, but I don't think that will work for rankings.Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is the ranking for one faculty more useful than for another faculty? It is as useful to know relative weaknesses as relative strengths. The section doesn't seem particularly long or giant to me and has been around this length for quite some years. If some faculties are deleted then it creates a debate about which ones are included and why. The most neutral means is to include all faculties. It seems preferable to include the ranking for each faculty. If the global rankings start producing rankings for each subject area then it would be excessive to include all of these I agree. 88.98.210.46 (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

To me, it seems more of a problem that details are given for the international rankings but not for the national rankings. This would appear to be a case of WP:UNDUE - the national and international rankings should be given at least approximately equal space and detail. Robminchin (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

A Google search for "UCL rankings" brings up far more results for global rankings. When UCL is referred to in the media, its world rankings are invariably referred to rather than domestic. Domestic rankings are essentially undergraduate rankings. Their importance has clearly faded as world rankings have become more prominent over the past 10 years. A world ranking also contains, by definition, a national ranking and these are referred to. The national ranking section could be expanded but I don't see why it should be the same length as the international section.88.98.210.46 (talk) 22:02, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The national subset of a world ranking is not the same as a national ranking, as it only draws on a limited subset of data, thus the statement in a report by the Higher Education Policy Institute just over a year ago that "Beyond the international rankings, national rankings now exist in an increasing number of countries, generally compiled by commercial entities. In the United Kingdom, many newspapers publish rankings of what they claim to be the ‘best’ universities. These are of varying validity but, because they are generally based on more robust data, are more highly regarded than international rankings."[6] As the national rankings are stated by a reliable third party who have actually carried out research into this to be 'more highly regarded' and 'based on more robust data', not giving them at least equal space would seem to be WP:UNDUE. Robminchin (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."213.205.194.114 (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

That's what WP:UNDUE says, actually contradicting your argument. A brief internet search reveals what we all know anyhow - international rankings now get far more coverage. That HEPI report is pretty low quality, bargain basement quasi academic research, even the sentence you quote is inaccurate. It says many UK universities publish rankings, in fact only the Sunday Times and Guardian do now. The Telegraph, Independent and FT used to. 213.205.194.114 (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Significant viewpoints published in reliable sources is not the same as media coverage of those viewpoints (which is, e.g., much higher for climate change denial than the coverage given in Wikipedia) or Google hits. If you have any actual reliable source to contradict the HEPI report, then please provide it. Robminchin (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Alumni

I created this tab simply to discuss alumni. For example, just came across Alexander William Williamson, wondering if he is among the alumni and where to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.9.5 (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Beatrice Fihn Part of Nobel Peace Prize 2017 award — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.9.5 (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Ernst Chain worked at University College Hospital before winning his Nobel Prize

Agenda pushing

It must be quite obvious to anyone remotely objective following this article that there are a couple of Durham graduates who are expending energies making edits which only ever are made to diminish the way UCL is presented. This was for quite a few years a stable and pretty objective article which strayed from the puffery often found in university articles on WP. Including ironically the Durham article, where there has long been a stale and undue quote in the lead about being the leading alternative to Oxbridge. Of course no UCL graduates can be bothered to waste their time seeking to get the quote removed.88.98.210.46 (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Just today there is an article in the FT which prominently describes UCL being in the top 10 worldwide. It also describes how international rankings have eclipsed national ones. Furthermore it describes UCL peers as being National University of Singapore and ETH https://www.ft.com/content/b27f84f8-1006-11e8-940e-08320fc2a277

This WP article now in fact understates UCL position as presented in reliable third party sources. It makes it appear simply a leading UK university. Clearly this isn't the way it is presented in reliable third party sources. UCL has changed very significantly in the past 20 years and so has the international university scene. As a result of recent edits this article now fails to present the reality. It is a shame how two or three persistent editors can spoil an article which around 1,500 view each day.88.98.210.46 (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Writing as an editor who has followed this "debate" (without actively contributing to it), the only "agenda pusher" I've noticed is the anonymous editor contributing from a series of IP addresses, who can't be bothered to register an account, who seems never to have edited any other articles, and whose sole aim appears to be the undue promotion of UCL's status. Your snotty ad hominem reference to "a couple of Durham graduates" is beneath contempt. I assume you are referring to Robminchin (I don't know who else), an experienced, active, and (not least) literate editor who contributes regularly to the improvement of multiple articles across many subject areas, and who in this debate has never sought anything other than the use of neutral and encyclopedic language. GrindtXX (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems a nerve was struck. The way you suggest my posting is ad hominem whilst also accusing me of agenda pushing and making a series of ad hominem comments is amusing. Robminchin's work on this article speaks for itself, every edit made presents UCL in a worse light, usually by deleting content - generally longstanding - which is positive. 88.98.210.46 (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that your example of academic puffery on the Durham page is a quote that was removed in January – by me, with the edit summary "Update and re-word to sound less promotional". My only agenda, as demonstrated by the very example you yourself have chosen, is to have neutral, encyclopedic articles. Robminchin (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Well it's a recent and long overdue deletion since the quote was years old.

The Durham lead states as follows: "The university is currently ranked 4th to 6th by recent national league tables of the British universities and in the top 100 in three of the four major global tables (see below)"

This gives an undue prominence to the UK rankings but the way in which the international rankings is presented is rather different to the text added yesterday to this article, which states the highest and lowest across four international rankings, the three dominant ones (ARWU, QS and THES) and CWTS. To apply a similar approach here would be "in the top 15 in three of the four major global rankings". That would be more neutral and representative of third party sources than the text added yesterday. It's still giving too much emphasis to a ranking which is far less cited in reliable Sources, but is more balanced. 88.98.210.46 (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

That phrasing would seem a reasonable compromise to me for the international rankings (I proposed something similar above), although it would have to be top 20, as UCL ranks 7th, 16th, 16th and 26th. The wording could then be something like "UCL is ranked in the top 20 in three of the four major international rankings and 7th to 10th in the national rankings." What do others think?

The rankings are those used in the infobox, which is common across UK university articles. Robminchin (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Been watching this for quite a while, just taking a look through the history of the page and it is hard to disagree with the point made that Robminchin keeps putting UCL subtly in a bad light. What is certainly so is that the user does not allow other people to edit for some reason. There is no 'leading'/ 'prestigious' universities strongly emphasized by robminchin hence that should not be written (But please be consistent and change other high rankings universities globally then). Anyway, how it is now I believe is completely fine, is neutral and should be left alone. I don't understand why the user had to change it in the first place, especially as it was discussed earlier and all parties came to an agreement. It is completely fine as it is in my opinion. Traveltheworld100 (talk) 12:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I notice you have just created your account. As you appear to have very similar opinions to IP editors previously posting in this discussion, could you confirm whether or not you are one of those editors?

I'm sure that you'll have noticed looking back over the discussion on this page that 'consistently ranked highly' was objected to by other editors as it was vague and could be seen as implying a top-10 ranking across all of the league tables. You will also have noticed that this discussion was re-opened by one of the IP editors trying to change the current phrasing to 'among the top universities', leading to an opinion (again, from another editor - not me) that the current phrasing would benefit from 'neutral revision'. The current phrasing also omits any mention of the national rankings, which means it isn't giving a balanced overview of how UCL is ranked. There was a general consensus that it needed to change, opposed by a single IP editor who continually reverted the changes made by more than one editor.

I'm sure you will have seen that I have indeed been active in removing academic puffery across multiple pages. Unfortunately, this is a slow process due to editors who want to preserve puffery on their pages. Indeed, the same IP editor who has been reverting the changes here has recently inserted a phrase on the LSE page claiming that it is "regarded as one of the worlds most prestigious and leading universities", this has had to be taken to the talk page there to avoid edit-warring. There are only a certain number of hours in the day, so if you want to help in removing academic puffery then you would be more than welcome.

You will also have noticed that I have been working on a compromise solution proposed by one of the IP editors - in the comment just above yours. I'm giving others a chance to weigh in on that wording before putting in the article, as is my usual practice. Robminchin (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@Robminchin: Your edits appear to be perfectly inline with Wikipedia's standards for universities, down to the last jot and tittle - and very much in line with the rankings section. I will be restoring your changes per Wikipedia's guidelines. Scr★pIron^IV 20:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I just want to confirm I am not sure who the person on the other IP address is nor do I have a wiki account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.9.5 (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This is becoming beyond a joke. @Robminchin, no I am not the same person as the anonymous user. I just got annoyed with your consistent undeeded changes on the page for the past few months and as a result, decided to make an account.

I believe how it is currently is neutral enough. I think it is very obvious your neutrality comes into dispute. Therefore I don't think it is appropriate for you to make changes the way you currently do so. Furthermore when talking about 'major' global rankings, what can be classed as a 'major' ranking can be disputed in the same way you believe a 'leading/top university' can. Especially as you have included a random table that that most people have never heard before that lowers the rankings (Agenda pushing and also not a neutral table- a quick look shows it favors scientific research only- probably why not highly regarded, even on there it is ranked as high as 8th but again trying to put UCL in a bad light). Anyway if that is the case then anyone can make tables and argue that it is a 'major' table. I can publish a table tomorrow where the university that ranks first is Leeds Met, then Cardiff University, and then Newcastle. Why because Leeds, in my opinion, has the most funniest students, then Cardiff and then Newcastle. Why is that not a major ranking? Why not use that hey? It's stupid.

The point is stop cherry picking and leave it the way it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traveltheworld100 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

As I have explained multiple times elsewhere on this page, the rankings are those in the infobox and are common to all UK universities. I did not add the Leiden ranking to the infobox, nor was I even involved in the discussion that led to it being added. Your allegation that I have "included a random table" is completely false, as was pointed out when this allegation was made earlier by an IP editor. This is not the correct forum to discuss which rankings are included in an infobox that is common to all UK universities. Robminchin (talk) 06:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Robminchin: Actually, your compromise was a step backward from WP:UNIGUIDE, which specifies that a range should be used. I will not make anymore edits here until after the SPI is concluded. Long story short, your edits have been correct in content, and the IP's (and this newly registered editor's) edits are contradictory to the community consensus. The blatant boosterism is becoming tedious. Scr★pIron^IV 14:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I read that recommendation as being to include how many institutions were in the ranking from the example given ('not "28th," but "28th among the 29" or "28th among the 200"'), although that isn't really what I would normally call a range! In general, I would say a range is less useful when there is a significant outlier, e.g. if UCL were ranked 6, 10, 18, 60, then the range 6 – 60 would give a negative impression as the implication is that the average placement is somewhere near the middle of the range (conversely, if UCL were ranked 6, 50, 57, 60 the range would give a positive impression). In the actual case of UCL, which has an almost precisely symmetrical distribution of international rankings (7, 16, 16, 26), the average position is 16.25 and the centre of the range is 16.5, so giving the range isn't misleading in either a negative or positive manner. I haven't got strong opinions on which of the wordings is best here,, but as it was based on a proposal by one of the IP editors it seemed possible that the compromise wording would gain wider acceptance. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to have been the case. Robminchin (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

If you want a compromise, then the Leiden rankings will not be included as they are not a major ranking. Otherwise 'consistently ranked highly in global rankings' will be back in use. Up to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traveltheworld100 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The Leiden rankings are included in the infobox and so should be included in the lead, otherwise we are being internally inconsistent. This is not the correct forum to discuss which rankings should be in the infobox. And what stays is not up to me or you, it's up to community consensus. Robminchin (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Also @robminchin, just came across something, take a look at ICL's wiki page and lets really see how consistent you really are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traveltheworld100 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:Other stuff exists is not an argument for making this a bad page. Unfortunately I don't have unlimited time, so can't fix everything, but if you feel like editing Imperial's page to make it better, then I will certainly back you up. Robminchin (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@robminchin Please tell me how it is appropriate to use a ranking in the lead which is based only on scientific research when it is a multi-Faculty university?

Well, you certainly seem to have enough time on this page. Again your consistently is really a concern. I can see why this thread was made in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traveltheworld100 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I've already explained why the Leiden ranking (which is not based only on scientific research, but includes research in arts and humanities) is there. And I have been active in removing academic puffery from a number of pages (including Durham, UCL, LSE, King's, Sciences Po), but you will always be able to find one that still has it. Imperial is not a page I have been active on, or even particularly looked at, but if you wish to remove the puffery from that page then I will support you. That WP:Other stuff exists is not an argument against removing academic puffery from this page. Robminchin (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@robminchin, I think if you go on the website it says the following: "The CWTS Leiden Ranking 2017 offers key insights into the scientific performance of over 900 major universities worldwide. A sophisticated set of bibliometric indicators provides statistics on the scientific impact of universities and on universities’ involvement in scientific collaboration."

I think that it is pretty clear that it is only scientific research. Also I have also failed to see how you class it as a major ranking? The top 3 are widely known to be QS, THE and Shanghai so where Leiden has come from, I think you are the one cherry picking. Picking an extra ranking (That is deeply floored) that lowers UCL's position on purpose. Publications are not a measure of the quality of an institution so I think it is fair to say you are trying to lead the audience. Never the less I am pretty sure it is ranked 16th on their too not 26th. Please clarify.

Also considering you are the one trying to uphold wiki values then you can change it. I don't really care unlike you. It only takes a sec, unless you have something just against UCL for some reason and only want to put it in a bad light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traveltheworld100 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The 'fields of science' covered by the Leiden ranking include 'social sciences and humanities', this is explicit on their website. They are using science in a more general sense that that used in, for example, 'faculty of science'. I have not picked the Leiden ranking for inclusion, it is included in the infobox that is common across all UK universities, and if you wish to discuss whether it should be included there then this is not the correct forum to do so.

Thank you for admitting that you don't care about upholding wiki values. If you did, you would know that this is also not the correct forum for discussing what is on the Imperial page, or any other page than this one. WP:Other stuff exists is not an argument for what should be on here. You will always be able to find some other university that has academic boosterism in its lead; that does not justify academic boosterism on this page.

In the final analysis, UCL is better off with a page that is free of academic boosterism. Including puffery gives the impression that the alumni and students are unsure of their university's place in the world and are trying to give it a leg-up. That isn't a good look for a university. Removing the boosterism and letting the facts speak for themselves is not putting UCL in a bad light, it is the boosterism itself that puts UCL in a bad light. Robminchin (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

"Major" rankings/ "national" rankings.

The description of rankings as "major" in the lead is clear POV. QS, THES and ARWU arguably justify this label, CWTS does not ([7], [8], [9].

The description of the three UK university undergraduate rankings as the "national rankings" is also POV and too imprecise. There are many rankings which could be described as national rankings of UK universities, including REF, by taking the national position in a global ranking, research income, total income, funding awards, grants, citations etc. The Guardian, Times and Complete rakings are quite specific rankings focused on undergraduate entry. They have clearly been eclipsed in importance by global rankings and inclding them in the lead is undue, but if they are to be included they should be described accurately as "the three university league tables published annually by British newspapers which focus on undergraduate education".

The lead is also now a mess, the last paragraph is too long and looks ugly.88.98.210.47 (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

If you have a better wording for the international rankings, then please suggest it. Possibly "notable" rather than "major"?

For the national rankings, it is quite clear what is meant and this usage is standard, e.g. in the opening paragraph of Rankings of universities in the United Kingdom: "Three national rankings of universities in the United Kingdom are published annually – by The Complete University Guide, The Guardian and jointly by The Times and The Sunday Times. Rankings have also been produced in the past by The Daily Telegraph and Financial Times." A link to that article might help clarify matters.

As to whether it should be specified that they are undergraduate-oriented, it could equally be argued that detailed explanations of the international rankings being research-oriented, and the degree to which they measure quality or quantity of research should be given. This is addressed in WP:BOOSTER: "Rankings should be neutrally worded without modifiers or disclaimers. Similarly, do not exclude notable rankings simply because they are inconveniently low or you disagree with their methodology. An article about a university is not the appropriate venue to debate the merits of various rankings' respective methodologies. If a reader wants to know about the methodology, they can follow the citation that should already accompany any ranking or the wikilink to the Wikipedia article describing that ranking in more detail."

Robminchin (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Claim to be leading on the basis of rankings

An anonymous editor is trying to insist on the wording "is one of the world's leading universities" in the lead, backed up by references to rankings. I have suggested the alternative wording "is placed highly in global university rankings".

The anonymous editor's wording is problematic:

• The statement that UCL is placed highly in global university rankings is factual. The statement that it is one of the world's leading universities is opinion. Wikipedia should WP:ASSERT facts not opinions.

• Wikipedia should WP:Avoid academic boosterism. Specific statements are preferred to vague terms of praise, such as "leading", as the essay says: "Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide"

• The claim to be leading uses the rankings to build a picture of the university, contrary to WP:UNIGUIDE: "In the lead, do not use rankings to synthesize an image of the institution, whether good or bad. Give one factual statement summarising overall "most recent" rankings obtained in key surveys (for example, "In 2010, institution 'A' has been ranked #3 by The Economist, #5 by The New York Times and #8 by Financial Times.")."

• The claim to be leading is WP:PEACOCK.

The anonymous editor has claimed that UCL's high rankings justify the claim that it is a leading university. This is implicitly a claim that there is a true ranking of "leading" universities that is approximated by the global university rankings. A quick look at College and university rankings#Global rankings shows that the validity of these rankings is strongly disputed, with the global rankings primarily measuring research and often measuring size of output rather than quality.

Given all of the above, the claim that UCL "is one of the world's leading universities" has no place in the lead, or anywhere in the article. Robminchin (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. "one of the world's leading universities" is meaningless, and should not appear in the lede anyway. What's reasonable is to add referenced info like "UCL is ranked number [insert number] by the [insert ranking]" in the body of the text.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Also agree, such a vague statement is unnecessary. People can work out for themselves if it is a leading university. If desired we could expand the paragraph 4... "UCL ranks highly in national and international league tables" with international rankings, but that should include all points of view to prevent "synthesis" Aloneinthewild (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Given the sentence at the start of paragraph 4, it seems that the bit in the first paragraph is unnecessary and should probably simply be deleted. It would also make sense to add more detail to paragraph 4, possibly (based on the rankings in the rankings box) "UCL ranks in the top 30 of the major international rankings and in the top 10 of the UK league tables." (The bit on employability of graduates seems a bit odd in the lead and should probably be removed). Robminchin (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The involved editor is still involved in an edit war over this. Could an uninvolved editor negotiate the situation, i'm conscious of edit waring myself Aloneinthewild (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with what robminchin stated at the start of this thread: (I have suggested the alternative wording "is placed highly in global university rankings".). I made the change accordingly and understood the point made by robminchin. Hence to use a fact base argument instead of classifying it as leading. Now please can we put this to bed. For some reason aloneinthewold changed the sentence back to 'leading university' which just caused further dispute after finally realising the point robminchin made. Thie sentence now is 100% factual based as stated by wikipiedia hence please do not change further from now on. As stated earlier lets put this to bed please, we all have other stuff I imagine then to waste time on wiki and argue. It's nearly Christmas for goodness sake, enjoy it!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.9.126 (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I guess on some level we should be flattered that UCL's rise over the past decade has aroused the jealousy of Durham graduates such that want to expend significant time trying to make UCL look worse in this article. Look at Robminchin's edits on this article, they are only ever made to make UCL look worse. He is clearly pushing an agenda and should not be allowed to edit the page. BTW UCL's average across the three main rankings is actually within the top 15, not top 30. I used to edit WP a lot and gave up because of editors like Robminchin.88.98.210.46 (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and keep this discussion relevant to the topic.

144.82.9.126 There is now an open discussion going on, so it's not just a case of agreeing with me. Other editors may not find my initial proposed wording acceptable, particularly as rankings come up again in the fourth paragraph. That is why I made the second proposal, which would summarise the rankings from the infobox in the fourth paragraph of the lead. If other editors could give their opinions on either of those two solutions that would help move discussion along. Until consensus is reached, it is normal practice to leave the disputed text tagged and put forward suggestions here. Robminchin (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree |88.98.210.46]]. The page beforehand, for months/ years in the first paragraph the institution in question was described as the following: 'regarding as a world leading university'. There were no questions for this for ages, it was perfectly fine. However, this huge debate turned up for no reason which is why I finally conceded and kept the change/suggestion the Durham grad wanted (more so what he did not want). As stated earlier, many top 50 universities are classed as world leading across wiki such as Usyd but he has not changed them. Harvard is described as 'prestigious' which surely is not a fact but depends person to person but again the person in question does not seem to care about other top institutions but only UCL. It is pretty much a fact UCL is world leading, considering the world-class research currently ongoing, its academic prestigious history and more importantly the huge amount of funding it gets and what the rankings certainly suggest. However for some reason, this cannot be written, and I certainly do feel there may be a slight biased from the Durham grad, but I will not jump to conclusions. Robminchin please do not change paragraph 1- only if substituted for my original suggestion (regarded as world leading ect-how it has actually been for years unchanged) and certainly not paragraph 4 otherwise I will be having strong words for such unnecessary undermining edits. Peace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.9.126 (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there are other articles that contain such claims. That doesn't make them right – see WP:Other stuff exists for a discussion (primarily with reference to deletion arguments, but it applies to content as well) and WP:OTHERCONTENT. I have personally been involved in the removal of similar claims from Durham, LSE and Science Po recently (only last month for Durham).

That it had remained unchallenged up to now is no a valid argument, see WP:CONTENTAGE: "if some material is not suitable for Wikipedia by current standards, it will be deleted or corrected, regardless of how old it is."

That I attended a different university is not an argument. Beside being ad hominem, the obvious conclusion of this argument would be that only alumni of any university should edit pages on that university, which would be unlikely to lead to good, unbiased articles. Robminchin (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Robminchin okay fair enough, like I said I am not going to jump to any conclusions. Please, lets just leave it as it is now. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.9.126 (talk) 12:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

For the reasons stated above, leaving it as it is now isn't an acceptable solution. If you have reasoned arguments against consolidating both of the rankings-based statements (1st and 4th paragraphs) into a single, factual statement that will allow readers to draw their own conclusions without being led, then please make them. Otherwise it should be changed. Robminchin (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Based on WP:UNIGUIDE and WP:Avoid academic boosterism, there needed to be a WP:NPOV revision. The are no "world leading universities". There is no factual reference that can provide neutral factual analysis at this time that would support inclusion in the lead. Even so, such content is WP:UNDUE in the lead unless it is a commonly known or accepted statement. It may be more appropriate to have it read "X has consistently ranked highly in global university rankings" but only when that applies to the top 1-10 rankings, anything beyond that is likely WP:Puffery. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

An IP user (possibly the same one) is now claiming that because this discussion centred on "leading universities", "top universities" in essentially the same sentence is okay. I believe this discussion applies generally to all such WP:PEACOCK terms, and invite other contributers to this discussion (Aloneinthewild, Zigzig20s, Randomeditor1000) to give their opinions. Robminchin (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I would state my perspective is that the phrasing "placed highly in global university rankings" is more context specific and precise based on the source cited. However, I restate my opinion above that neutral revision is the most appropriate. It may be appropriate to request semi-edit protection if the disagreement on this specific instance continues. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Randomeditor1000 – My earlier proposal was for "UCL ranks in the top 30 of the major international rankings and in the top 10 of the UK league tables." in paragraph 4 (which, at the time, contained another sentence on ranking). This didn't get many comments so I didn't move ahead with that. Do you feel removing the current sentence from the first paragraph and putting this sentence in paragraph 4 would be more neutral? Robminchin (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I've now put in the simple, factual statement that "UCL is ranked 7th to 26th in the major international rankings and 7th to 10th in the national rankings", which avoids any 'highly', 'top', 'leading', or anything else in that line. I've put this back into the 'rankings, alumni and affiliations' paragraph of the lead, removing the contentious statement from the opening paragraph. Robminchin (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

There are many ways this could be written and the way you have phrased it is in the least flattering way possible. There are three international rankings which are far more influential and widely quoted than the others - THES, QS and ARWU. Across the three UCL's average is within the top 15. Why include CWTS? And why choose the adjusted for size CWTS ranking? Which just happens to be UCL's lowest international ranking. There are in fact other rankings where UCL is inside the top 10. In the Finacial Times today UCL is referred to as world top 10 based on its QS ranking. Quality third party sources frequently refer to UCL in this way. Also, why give equal mention to national rankings? Third party sources don't. And if they are to be mentioned, why in this way. Essentially the least flattering form of words.88.98.210.46 (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of a Wikipedia page is not to flatter the subject, but to convey information in an encyclopaedic way. See WP:BOOSTER. EmyRussell (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The purpose is not to flatter nor to present the subject in an unflattering way. Sources such as the Financial Times describe UCL as "world top 10". I'm not proposing that type of wording but there is a more neutral third way. UCL's average ranking across the three main global rankings is within the top 15. That is highly factual and neutral.

As I said, why include CWTS? It's actual only in the rankings box because Robmichin added it there recently. And if CWTS why the adjusted ranking?

And why is a text which was added yesterday being described as "consensus" in edit summaries rather than text in place for some years?88.98.210.46 (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

You are factually incorrect. CWTS was (as far as I can tell from the edit logs) added to the infobox in 2016, not recently, following a discussion that I was not even involved in, let alone responsible for the addition. This isn't the place for a discussion of what should be included in an infobox used across multiple pages. Robminchin (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Robminchin lets leave that (the more detailed for the ranking section). That is what it is there for. I agree with randomeditor1000, more suitable and concise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.9.5 (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a lot more detail in the ranking section, that amount of detail is appropriate for the lead. The new statement makes no attempt to interpret the rankings (e.g. 'placed highly') but merely states the facts, making it more encyclopedic and leaving it for readers to determine what they think – which is how it should be. Note the opinion from randomeditor1000 above that "neutral revision is the most appropriate" and the edit summary from a third editor referring to the new statement as "neutrally worded range of rankings".

I also notice that you have again resorted to ad hominem arguments (referring to me as the 'Durham grad' in your edit summaries), I refer you again to WP:No personal attacks. Robminchin (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. If the reader would like to further delve into the rankings, the rankings section later in the page is precisely there for that reason. The introduction should be a clear unbiased summary. What it is now is too bulky for the introduction. Also, no statements of 'leading' or 'top' universities as discussed before. I agree with the earlier suggestion 'consistently placed highly in global university rankings' as a simple concise yet unbiased summary that would fit in nicely in the introduction (as how it was originally). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.9.5 (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, Robminchin there certainly seems to be a problem and I really do feel there is an agenda on your part. You are not talking on the talk page, you're making changes without consulting anybody, you are attempting to block people and by looking at this history of the page over the last 12 months, any edits on this page seems to be supervised by you and only you! & are only done with your blessing. It has gotten really frustrating, who the hell are you to control a public page as a dictatorship and block others? You must understand why people keep mentioning you as the Durham grad because there really does seem to feel you have an agenda and that the authenticity of the changes you make and the way you make your changes with complete disregard to others certainly seems to confirm this. You really need to sort your self out and leave the edit to how it was earlier. Goodness me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.82.9.5 (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

User (88.98.210.46) I really do agree with you, some sort of agenda is being pushed. Leiden rankings seem to publish UCL at 16th in source provided (As high as 8th under different options) but robminchin seems to change it to 26 for no reason? Are the Leiden rankings even considered highly? Never heard of them other than the 3 major tables mentioned earlier. The Durham grad really does not seem to like the high rankings (I don't think this statement can be refuted) University College London has consistently achieved in recent years, I do wonder why???

We have already spoken about the importance of avoiding academic boosterism but downplaying other institutions, their reputation and achievements on purpose is certainly just as (if not) worse.

I chose not to engage with ad hominem attacks, as advised on WP:Personal attacks, but I am quite happy to engage on any substantive points. You have raised the concern that the summary sentence is not concise, I disagree – it is necessary, for balance, to give all opinions, so a statement referring just to the international rankings is over-concise. If there is to be a statement about ranking in the lead, it should encompass all of the rankings in the infobox; if you think this would be too long, then there is always the option of not mentioning the rankings in the lead at all. The Leiden rankings are included in the infobox, and the PP top 10% (which is a proxy for the quality of research) is the ranking that is used there. This is common (as I noted elsewhere on this talk page) to all UK university pages on Wikipedia and can not possibly be regarded as an attack on UCL. Robminchin (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The compromise wording "UCL is ranked in the top 20 in three of the four major international rankings and 7th to 10th in the national rankings" has emerged in another thread on this page, I thought I should cross-post it to this thread as well to ensure people see it. What do others think?

I'm trying another compromise which lists the four international rankings explicitly. This is, unfortunately, not very concise, as is inevitable with an explicit listing, which is why I didn't go for this originally. My feeling is that this shouldn't be needed, as readers can always look at the rankings section if they're interested in which ranking gives which placing, but the other alternative being proposed had explicit listings and so I have adopted that. If other editors don't like this, we can go back to one of the earlier, more concise, versions, either giving the range for international rankings or saying that UCL is in the top 20 in 3 out of 4 international rankings. Robminchin (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been following this but not had time to comment before. I think Robminchin's original suggestion showing the range of international rankings is most appropriate. If we are to only show the best rankings then that is cherry picking. Further details is in the rankings paragraph for each ranking. Also I believe we should include the national rankings as you originally had. It would be good if the IP understood this is an encyclopedia, we are not here to promote any topic or university, only to show it in a neutral manner. Equally all rankings have flaws, but this is not the place to discuss that. Aloneinthewild (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for vanishing, there's been some chaos at work recently that hasn't left me a lot of free time.[10] There was also an earlier opinion from ScrapIronIV in favour of giving the range for both national and international rankings. Are there any arguments against returning to that version, which otherwise seems to be preferred? Robminchin (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

As this has been up for a week without objection, and given the earlier support for this version, I have now restored it to the main page. Robminchin (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not the same IP editor. In reply to the ranges, yes, I have a strong argument against the range being listed as it is currently. The ranges given are very vague. It is very hard to tell UCL's rankings by the range provided. For example, it could be that it has a tighter statistical distribution within the range compared to other schools (which may have a wider distribution), or how many of the numbers given are more outliers compared to others. It was very hard for me to figure out what this range meant when reading this encyclopedia article. Therefore, because of the vagueness of the range given, specific values should be used, or the alternative you stated earlier, "UCL is in the top 20 in 3 out of 4 international rankings." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.239.124 (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Inclusion of CWTS Leiden Ranking (PP Top 10%)

Why is this ranking included in the lead and the rankings tables? This is not a major international ranking, nor does it appear in the leads for other peer universities. University College London (UCL) clearly ranks within the top twenty in the world for ARWU, THE, and QS, which are the accepted international benchmark tables.

Furthermore, why is the public standard for CWTS Leiden, if it is to be used, the sub-ranking for PP Top 10%? The ranking itself clearly focuses on research power and excellence, and by that measure, does it not proceed that the sub-rankings for P and/or P (Top 10%) should be used?

Moraun (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi robminchin, can you address this please? Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry, I see you've answered above. Polyamorph (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The inclusion of CWTS has been discussed on the infobox talk page, as has the inclusion of other rankings. This is better discussed there than here, as the infobox is common to all UK universities.

As to why the PP (top 10%) – that is a quality measure, controlled for size, rather than a quantity measure. This is similar to the quantitative metrics included in the THE and QS rankings – although ARWU metrics measures only quantity making no correction for size, and the qualitative "survey" metrics in the THE and QS surveys probably also reflect size rather than quality (similar to the CWTS P (top 10%) measure).

However, it is not for us to parse the rankings and decide which is most valid (if any). We include rankings despite the fact that they are flawed (ARWU's ranking of the LSE is a case in point: the failure to account for institutional size and the ranking's bias towards scientific subjects mean LSE ranks in the 151-200 bracket), because we are passing on information to readers which they can decide to use or ignore. That we take this neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's core principles.

Unfortunately, finding a definitive list of what is a major international ranking is difficult. Most papers will quote their favourite, rather than comparing multiple rankings (in the UK this is almost always THE or QS). Having the "major rankings" determined by Wikipedia editors is Original Research. Thus the suggestion on the infobox talk page of using the rankings defined by http://www.universityrankings.ch. These are the four rankings currently in use.

Robminchin (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifications, Robminchin. While I feel it would be more representative to use the P (Top 10%) sub-ranking, I understand that contention would be an issue to litigate on the talk page for the Infobox. Either way, it is, at present, the standard for British universities on Wikipedia. I appreciate your willingness to engage on these issues.

Moraun (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for my previous conduct regarding the repeated corrections of the lead. As a new user, I was unaware there was a policy to control edit disputes.

I do not believe the issue has reached an agreeable resolution. May I suggest a compromise?

WP:UNIGUIDE reads:

"Give one factual statement summarising overall "most recent" rankings obtained in key surveys (for example, "In 2010, institution 'A' has been ranked #3 by The Economist, #5 by The New York Times and #8 by Financial Times.")."

Other peer universities and constituent institutions of the University of London, including the London School of Economics, Imperial College London, and King's College London, each list the most recent annual rankings for ARWU, QS, and THE, as well as CWTS Leiden. Might the concerns of all parties be best served by making an explicit listing, in this way?

On 15 and 17 February, Robminchin stated the following:

"That phrasing would seem a reasonable compromise to me for the international rankings (I proposed something similar above), although it would have to be top 20, as UCL ranks 7th, 16th, 16th and 26th. The wording could then be something like "UCL is ranked in the top 20 in three of the four major international rankings and 7th to 10th in the national rankings." What do others think?

I read that recommendation as being to include how many institutions were in the ranking from the example given ('not "28th," but "28th among the 29" or "28th among the 200"'), although that isn't really what I would normally call a range! In general, I would say a range is less useful when there is a significant outlier, e.g. if UCL were ranked 6, 10, 18, 60, then the range 6 – 60 would give a negative impression as the implication is that the average placement is somewhere near the middle of the range (conversely, if UCL were ranked 6, 50, 57, 60 the range would give a positive impression). In the actual case of UCL, which has an almost precisely symmetrical distribution of international rankings (7, 16, 16, 26), the average position is 16.25 and the centre of the range is 16.5, so giving the range isn't misleading in either a negative or positive manner. I haven't got strong opinions on which of the wordings is best here,, but as it was based on a proposal by one of the IP editors it seemed possible that the compromise wording would gain wider acceptance. Unfortunately this doesn't seem to have been the case."

My sense is that this a reasonable compromise, if we were to give the explicit range of rankings. What do others think?

Moraun (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd be happy with a range. I changed the sentence to a range from the (acceptable, but long-winded) explicit listing of all four rankings a month or two back, following a suggestion with no objections made on this page, then someone changed it to the current "in the top N" format, based on the (also reasonable) observation that this matches how the national rankings are presented. Robminchin (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

My suggestions are as follows:

1) Globally, University College London (UCL) is ranked 7th in the 2018 QS World University Rankings, 16th in the 2018 THE World University Rankings, 16th in the 2017 ARWU, and 26th in the 2017 CWTS Leiden Ranking.

2) Globally, University College London (UCL) is ranked from seventh to twenty-sixth in each of the four major international rankings.

Imperial College London and King's College London make use of explicit rankings, while the London School of Economics uses both explicit rankings and ranges.

Is there a consensus on one of the options presented above, additional suggestions, or further clarifications?

Moraun (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

We really shouldn't be including CWTS since they're based on whatever setting a user inputs. This allows interest groups to select settings that inflate their ranking. Alternatively, we can use USNWR which is a clear ranking and doesn't have this bias. Pkin8541 (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Name of the institution

UCL has been using "UCL" rather than "University College London" as it's trading name for quite a long time now (at least since the 2005 rebrand), and is often referred to in that way (e.g. in the Guardian University Guide). It's probably not a good idea to change the page name, as UCL is a disambiguation page so it would have to be UCL (London), which is silly, but the opening line could be changed to: "UCL (legally University College London)" to make it clear that UCL is the normal name, not just an abbreviation (see University of Cambridge and Durham University for similar examples). "UCL" is already used pretty consistently in the body of the article, so this would be bringing the lead in line with that. What do people think? Robminchin (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

"University College London" is the actual name of the university, legally or otherwise, UCL is the official initial. A key difference in Cambridge and Durham is that the legal vs used names are both written - not initials. How the institution chooses to refer to itself is, in my opinion, irrelevant because it is still "University College London". If you want to look at other universities that are uses initials or abbreviated in some way (eg MIT, KAUST, Caltech, IIT etc), it is always "<full official/legal name in writing> (initials/abbreviation)". For example, MIT is "Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)", IIT is "Illinois Institute of Technology (Illinois Tech or IIT)" etc. UCL should be no exception. Therefore, I believe use of "UCL (legally University College London)" is silly and inconsistent with other wiki pages.

Pkin8541 (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Other issue is that you can't use an abbreviation without introducing it first with very few exceptions - even if it is obvious.

Pkin8541 (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Whether the name used is based on initials or not is irrelevant. The fact is that "UCL is the university's official name" according to UCL.[11] It is a name in its own right, not just an abbreviation, making it completely different from MIT, etc., where the letters are an abbreviation.

"University College London (UCL)" is misleading in making it appear that "UCL" is simply an abbreviation, completely obscuring the fact that it is the only name used by the institution. "UCL (legally University College London)" is completely consistent with other institutions that have a distinct operating name and legal name.

That UCL can also be an abbreviation for University College London is irrelevant to its status as the name of the institution. There is no need to introduce it as an abbreviation, because it is used as a name in its own right. Robminchin (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

UCL is an abbreviation, if they choose to refer to themselves, that's up to them. However, UCL still stands for University College London, whether you like it or not. You have not clarified what UCL stands for, therefore, you shouldn't be using it to start with - that's not how abbreviations work. According to UCL, the UCL brand is to be used for "external communications" - Wikipedia is not UCL so it doesn't really matter. If you want, you can run it like NASA where the title of the page is NASA but the full name is used to start with UCL in brackets but UCL is nowhere near recognised as something like NASA.

See here: "Unless specified in the "Exceptions" section below, an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), if it is used later in the article. Common exceptions to this rule are post-nominal initials because writing them out in full would cause clutter. Another exception is when something is most commonly known by its acronym (i.e., its article here is at the acronym title), in which case the expansion can come in the parenthetical or be omitted, except in the lead of its own article: according to the CIA (US Central Intelligence Agency)."

Clearly, the title of the page is not UCL, so you start with University College London. Further, you'll find plenty of uses of "University College London", like in their address is still "University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT".

Pkin8541 (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

When an abbreviation is the actual name of an institution, it is not introduced first, because it is used as a name, not an abbreviation, e.g. HSBC, BT Group, or KCOM Group. That is the situation here – UCL is used as the name of the institution, not an abbreviation.

Other universities that use an operating name exclusively lead with that name. Following the list of official operating name in the OfS registry (and I'll admot I was mistaken about LSE – neither "LSE" nor "London School of Economics" is an official operating name), the Wikipedia page leads with the operating name (sometimes not even giving the legal name), examples include:

• Birkbeck, University of London – "Birkbeck, University of London (formally Birkbeck College)"
• University of Cambridge – "The University of Cambridge (legally The Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of Cambridge)"
• Durham University – "Durham University (legally the University of Durham)"
• Imperial College London – "Imperial College London (legally Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine)"
• Newcastle University – "Newcastle University (legally the University of Newcastle upon Tyne)"
• Northumbria University – "Northumbria University (legally the University of Northumbria at Newcastle)"
• University of Oxford "The University of Oxford is…" (legal name, "The Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of Oxford", not mentioned in opening sentence)
• Royal Holloway, University of London – "Royal Holloway, University of London (RHUL), formally incorporated as Royal Holloway and Bedford New College" (operating name is "Royal Holloway, University of London", RHUL is an abbreviation, not an operating name)
• SOAS, University of London – "SOAS University of London (/ˈsoʊæs/; the School of Oriental and African Studies)" (SOAS is part of the operating name, not introduced before use)

It is clearly established that operating names – which are generally also the common names – are given first. That UCL's operating name can also be interpreted as an abbreviation makes no difference to this – it is being used as a name in its own right, not an abbreviation. Examples like NASA, which is an abbreviation, are therefore irrelevant. Robminchin (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I have edited in a compromise wording that meets your concern about putting "University College London" first but avoids the misleading implication that "UCL" is just an abbreviation used for convenience. Please follow WP:BRD and stop re-reverting to your preferred wording rather than the stable version that existed before while the topic is under discussion. Robminchin (talk) 19:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The current form is fine. Keep in mind "Another exception is when something is most commonly known by its acronym" - UCL is still known to be University College London. People in London will recognise it as UCL but beyond the UK, it is not. Your last version was changed without anyone actually discussing so don't be misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkin8541 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Crest

Shouldn't the UCL coat of arms be at the top of the infobox and that UCL bar thing sit at the bottom?

Pkin8541 (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

No, because as explained in the article the pseudo-"coat of arms" has never had any official standing and is no longer used in any context by the College, which now uses only the logo (the "bar thing"). GrindtXX (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Commonwealth Flag, 2013.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Relevant discussion on WT:HED

A discussion relevant to this article is currently taking place on WT:HED (section) on the wider picture of WP:BOOSTERISM across university articles. Please see the relevant section if you wish to contribute, as any consensus made there may end up impacting this article, and it would be sensible to get involved earlier rather than going through any discussion it again if it affects this page. Your views and input would be most welcome Shadowssettle_(talk) 10:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)