Talk:Imperial College London/Archive 4

Problems with the lead
As currently written, the history section of the lead comes across as very confusing to anyone who does not already know Imperial's history:
 * It gives the impression the foundation of Imperial and the presence of the three founding colleges was part of Albert's original 1851 vision ("Royal Colleges" talked about in the plural and capitalised also normally refers to the royal colleges of physicians, surgeons, etc.)
 * The sentence about the Imperial Institute's foundation stone being laid, directly followed by the granting of the royal charter, gives the impression the university was founded as the Imperial Institute then became Imperial College and merged with the other three colleges.
 * It is nowhere stated that Imperial is actually in Albertopolis.
 * The phrase "In 1907, the university was granted a Royal Charter" gives the impression Imperial College became a university by royal charter in 1907.
 * The University of London is not mentioned at all, a very strange omission at odds with what is done on pages of other former colleges of federal universities.
 * Unlike virtually every other college that has gone on to become a university, the date when Imperial became a university is not mentioned.
 * The addition of medicine to the name in 1988, which would appear to be where the sentence on the medical school is going, isn't mentioned.
 * There is no clue as to why the business school is significant enough to be mentioned in the lead, making this look like recentism. There's not even a clue in the body as to why this is here.

I suggest:
 * Reword the Prince Albert sentence along the lines of "In 1851, Prince Albert started building his vision for a cultural area (nicknamed Albertopolis) in South Kensington; over the following decades, a number of cultural and educational institutions were founded here or relocated to the area." – starting the article with a large (but incomplete) list of institutions that are near to, but not actually associated with, the university distracts from the subject of the article.
 * Remove the sentence on the laying of the foundation stone of the Imperial Institute, which has no obvious bearing on the article
 * Reword the sentence on the charter along the lines of "In 1907, Imperial College was established by Royal Charter in Albertopolis, bringing together the Royal College of Science, the Royal School of Mines and the City and Guilds College that were already based there." – make it absolutely explicit this was the establishment of Imperial and tie it to the bit about Albertopolis.
 * Remove the sentences on the medical and business schools unless these can be expanded to explain why they ate important enough to be in the lead.
 * Add a sentence along the lines of "At its centenary in 2007, Imperial College left the University of London, which it has been part of since its foundation, and became a university in its own right."

The full opening paragraph would then read: "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 started building his vision for a cultural area (nicknamed Albertopolis) in South Kensington; over the the following decades, a number of cultural and educational institutions were founded here or relocated to the area. In 1907, Imperial College was established by Royal Charter in Albertopolis, bringing together the Royal College of Science, the Royal School of Mines and the City and Guilds College that were already based there. At its centenary in 2007, Imperial College left the University of London, which it has been part of since its foundation, and became a university in its own right."

This would keep the length about the same, concentrate on Imperial and important parts of its history, and remove elements that were treated too briefly to justify their presence. Robminchin (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I would agree that this kind of focus would be much better, however, I was told on previous occasions that the basis we were working from had historic editor consensus. I don't particularly think your suggestion is perfectly worded, but I agree on it mostly in terms of substance. However, seeing as the current version has been fought over quite a bit I would leave any suggestions here for long enough to make sure people have a chance to respond before making any edits to the articles.


 * It gives the impression the foundation of Imperial and the presence of the three founding colleges was part of Albert's original 1851 vision ("Royal Colleges" talked about in the plural and capitalised also normally refers to the royal colleges of physicians, surgeons, etc.) – In a way they were, at least in the sense they were the academic part of the building. Also Royal Colleges can be discussing any Royal Colleges, Music, etc. Just because they can commonly refer to the medical colleges, doesn't make this reference incorrect, although I agree clarity might be preferred.
 * The sentence about the Imperial Institute's foundation stone being laid, directly followed by the granting of the royal charter, gives the impression the university was founded as the Imperial Institute then became Imperial :College and merged with the other three colleges. – I completely agree, but I keep getting shot down on this.
 * It is nowhere stated that Imperial is actually in Albertopolis. – Disagree, Albertopolis is more of a buzzword in my experience (I know, I know, WP:NOR) than a commonly used term referring to the area, which is more often called South Kensington. Whilst I agree it is important to reference it in the article, I don't see the need for it to be prominent in the lead at all.
 * The phrase "In 1907, the university was granted a Royal Charter" gives the impression Imperial College became a university by royal charter in 1907. – Agree
 * The University of London is not mentioned at all, a very strange omission at odds with what is done on pages of other former colleges of federal universities. – Agree
 * Unlike virtually every other college that has gone on to become a university, the date when Imperial became a university is not mentioned. – Agree
 * The addition of medicine to the name in 1988, which would appear to be where the sentence on the medical school is going, isn't mentioned. – Disagree, Not particularly relevant for a lead at all, a small name change to the official, today seldom used name (as per brand's own guidelines and media usage, when compared to "Imperial College London"), this is rightly covered in the history section. The addition of medicine to the college, however, is relatively important, as many historically relevant medical schools came under the college's banner (St Mary's Hospital Medical School, Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School to name a few).
 * There is no clue as to why the business school is significant enough to be mentioned in the lead, making this look like recentism. There's not even a clue in the body as to why this is here. – No strong views


 * If people are interested in changing it, I would suggest the following tweaked version, which doesn't seem so heavy handed with Albertopolis – which in my personal experience seems to be more of a buzzword that something commonly used – and reduces clunky/repeated wording ''("here or relocated to the area", "that were already based there"), with the same substance:

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 started building his vision for a cultural area in South Kensington, with many cultural and academic institutions founded or located there over the next decades, including the Royal College of Science, Royal School of Mines, and City and Guilds College. These colleges were brought together in 1907, with the establishment of Imperial College by Royal Charter. At its centenary in 2007, Imperial College left the University of London, which it has been part of since its foundation, and became a university in its own right.
 * style='border-style: none none none solid;padding-left: 10px;border-color: #77aaff' |
 * style='border-style: none none none solid;padding-left: 10px;border-color: #77aaff' |
 * }
 * Anyway, that's just my thoughts, and to be honest, it would be more productive to work more on continuing to improve the quality of the history section, and the other articles on the topic, which receive much less editor attention Shadowssettle(talk) 21:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think Shadowssettle hit the nail on the head. The previous version of this intro paragraph has had a lot of editor consensus over its history. I also don't particularly think your suggestion is perfectly worded.  I can agree with some minor substance ideas, but think some of the level of criticism is exaggerated.  The current intro is clear and has been stable for a long time. I do not think this proposed version is more clear than the original version.  I do not think the intro paragraph should be rewritten after all the consensus and discussions taking place to hash it out.  At the same time, I can be okay with part of robminchins suggestion. The reason for my revert of the UofL part was because it used to say UofL in the intro a long time ago, this was removed and has not been in the intro for awhile, and then recently replaced with the royal colleges part in the same sentence of the intro where UofL used to be.  I am okay with keeping UofL in the intro. It seemed others were trying to figure out how to put UofL in the intro but did not know how.  We can add the UofL part back in.  I do not think the intro should be rewritten though removing the part about the queen and opening the business school or the opening of the school of medicine.  I also prefer the original second sentence with more specificity. I really do not like the proposed changes over the current historical version that has been widely discussed with a lot of consensus.  At the same time, while I reverted your last edit about UofL, because of shadowssettles edit to add the royal colleges instead.  Please add it back in as you have my consensus for this change. It was proposed in two places originally when I reverted it, I think UofL only needs to be said once in the intro. I do not want to hash out the intro AGAIN, and I 100% agree with Shadowssettle that to be honest it would be far more productive to continue to improve the quality of the history section, and the other articles on the topic, which receive much less editor attention than this intro has.  If you have suggestions for the UofL part, please add that to the current intro, without rewriting the intro through lengthy and contentious discussion. I would much rather focus on the history or other sections as suggested by both shadowssettle and myself than on this intro paragraph AGAIN that many users for the most part like - despite the very few problems that every editor has with intros on very popular wiki articles.  I think that is what your biggest point was anyways on UofL being in the intro, so perhaps we can add that in, then move on as Shadowssettle also suggested to the history or other sections or related articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:141B:CACB:E98D:662A:6074:248D (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I had removed the sentence about Queen Victoria laying the foundation stone from the intro. It seems like the history edits have been the most productive section to improve (and could use future editing) as it has new very useful information, while it is still aiming to be sharp and concise. In terms of the intro, I think the one sentence to possibly adjust - (without rewriting it due to the plethora of editors giving consensus opinions on the intro over time) would be that 1907 sentence.  It seems after Robminchins productive edits in the history section that city and guilds was not incorporated in 1907, but joined in 1910.  Should we remove city and guilds from this sentence or edit that sentence of the intro?  Without rewriting the intro since a lot of editors have weighed in over time, any ideas for that particular intro sentence? 172.91.162.61 (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Just leaving out C&G College would also be wrong, as C&G's support and the intent off merging in their college were vital parts of the scheme from at least 1905, it just took a bit longer to get sorted out than the two government colleges. Possibly something like: "Imperial was formed from three older colleges, the Royal College of Science, Royal School of Mines, and City and Guilds College, and incorporated by Royal Charter in 1907." This would avoid saying that the charter actually merged all three colleges in 1907 but retain the concept of the three founding colleges. Robminchin (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't mind that change a bit, but, to clear it up, actually the original merger of the C&G was in 1907, but it was not incorporated until later (see source provided) and there has already been a discussion over it (scroll up), the current wording being the simplest source-backed wording that could be agreed upon. If you want to change it, feel free on my account (I'm not against a modified version of your new intro, as I've already said) Shadowssettle(talk) 18:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, that makes sense. So we should definitely have C&G in that sentence.  I was trying to edit it per the history description.  It makes sense that this sentence is actually accurate though after reading what shadowssettle wrote/and looking up a source.  I therefore seen no reason to add the three oldest colleges to the sentence (or at the end of the sentence the colleges already there).  Anything being merged would be older, so it makes these added words appear redundant here. It makes sense that the current wording is the simplest source-backed wording that could be agreed on, and so should be kept.  At the same time, I am also okay with the initial version from Robminchin's proposed change of that sentence.  "In 1907, Imperial College was established by Royal Charter in Albertopolis, bringing together the Royal College of Science, the Royal School of Mines and the City and Guilds College that were already based there."  I remember shadowsssettle saying Albertopolis does not need to be in the sentence, and I thought the end descriptor (that were already based there) is not needed. So adjusting Robminchin's proposed version would lead to this with minor grammar and clarity improvements, if desired to adjust it:
 * "In 1907, Imperial College was established by Royal Charter, bringing together the Royal College of Science, the Royal School of Mines and the City and Guilds College."
 * Let us know if you prefer that one. It is not dramatically different as the sentence appears accurate from the one that was agreed on from the comments b4, but may be a slight improvement.  Sentence v2.076.81.250.218 (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This slighlty altered version of the proposed sentence by Robminchin is fine to use by me. Yes, this seems clear so I incorporated it.Mikecurry1 (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Photos
Restoring archived discussion on photos.

Shadowssettle and I had consensus that new high quality photos could be found for:
 * the main entrance
 * one of the college-run bars (such as the bar inside Beit Hall) or other social spaces
 * World leaders speaking with students and faculty at Imperial (such as President Xi, Prince Albert of Monaco, or The Emir of Qatar Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad Al Thani) (these photos were previously quite well liked by others and could be added with appropriate copyright permissions, which I had trouble sourcing) (MikeCurry1) 20:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, if the permissions can be sorted out. Robminchin (talk) 03:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

History Section
My edits were just reverted. I think the history section needs to be improved. New information was just added. A lot of which is great. I read through the GA Class articles, and what it recommends for the history section. It says that events need to be notable. I was trying to remove a few extraneous details, that I did not think were as notable to the college history. I was also trying to keep the writing concise. This is per GA class style guide. Any comments? Good_article_criteria College and university article advice
 * I think the extra information is good. If the history becomes too long then a History of Imperial College London subpage can be started, but I think for the moment it is better to have this information in the article. What you might deem as "not as notable" could be subjective Aloneinthewild (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with u|Aloneinthewild. The history section as it currently exists is a similar length to those of Bristol, Durham and King's (the UK university GAs with a similar length of history), but all of those have history subpages. These allow for a lengthier treatment on the subpage, with only the most notable events presented concisely on the main page. But until we have a large enough history section to justify a separate page, this content should go here. There's still plenty of history not here (Nobel prize work done at Imperial is an obvious lacuna that can be filled from sources on Imperial's webpage). If Bristol has enough history to justify a subpage (History of the University of Bristol) then I'm sure Imperial does, so once the section is a bit more complete we can start start discussing what should be kept on this page and what should only be on a subpage. Robminchin (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It is also with considering that any discussion of whether something is notable on Wikipedia needs to start from WP:NOTABILITY. Items in the history that are sourced only to the Imperial website, such as the establishment of departments, are objectively less notable for Wikipedia purposes than those from third-party sources. Imperial gaining indicated funding, which the OP deleted n their edits, is discussed as historically significant in a third-party academic article published 30 years later – by Wikipedia's criteria, this is unarguably notable. Robminchin (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps the history subpage History of Imperial College London suggested would be a nice idea. For me the current extra length reduces my personal readability of the page on aggregate. The history section is nice to read on its own.  In aggregate combined with reading the rest of the page together, it is hard for me to read through in one sitting to get to the bottom of this wiki encyclopedia article.  So I personally would also vote for a history subpage too, as I feel it is a little bit long for me, and being a bit more concise would help me read through to the bottom of the article in one sitting.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.224.71.115 (talk) 09:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The history section is rather long, can we then start a subpage for this or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.83.33.227 (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, the history section is 2500 words which is the equivalent to 5 pages single spaced or 10 pages double spaced. The university article advice page above stated that when an article becomes too large and comprehesnive it is beneficial to break the article off into a sub-page.  Therefore, I think there is sufficient justification for the sub-page proposed by Aloneinthewild, History of Imperial College London.  The Wiki example - Featured University articles for the first five colleges Duke, Dartmouth, Georgtown, Michigan State University, and University of Michigan have 1200, 1300, 900, 1350, and 1400 words respectively in their history sections as a summary, with many using a seperate sub-page for the history.  I think somewhere in that range of a 900-1400 words summary, similar to these example featured wiki university articles is prefered, (probably closer to 1300-1400 words), with the seperate history sub-page.Mikecurry1 (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur. The section is now long enough to justify splitting it off. This does raise the question as to whether we trim here by removing details from the history section (which can leave a rather disjointed "Here is a fact. Here is another fact." text) or removing whole items as less important – in which case, which ones? Robminchin (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thats good.  Perhaps, we can copy this current history section onto the page AloneintheWild suggested, History of Imperial College London.  Then we can try to make a summary on the wiki page of the most notable facts as suggested by Robminchin removing what we believe is less notable as a whole (since it will be more connected).  The main history points will probably be obvious and stick out.  There may be a lot of agreement on which are the most notable facts.  For example, if the Queen opens a school it has clear historical signicance and sticks out.  So, I think consensus decisions could help determine what to include - since the historical event will be notable to the most people.  I imagine the history section could be a high level general summary (such as done well by Harvard University 1161 words, while having a more detailed and comprehensive History of Harvard University section.  I imagine also the Imperial College London Official History may be a good source for determining the most significant facts historically too.  If you want anyone Robminchin, Aloneinthewild, Shadowssettle can go for an edit, and then we can improve and adapt it from there. Best, Mikecurry1 (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I created this page for you History of Imperial College London.

Thanks for going ahead Mikecurry. Now we have to discuss which parts should be removed from the main article. Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The history article should've probably been left as a draft slightly longer. I have created a provisional summary here, which I think does fine for now—feel free to modify it—as we were left a ostensibly half-finished change otherwise Shadowssettle(talk) 20:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Shadowssettle! Mikecurry1 (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

What parts to remove
Robminchin, Aloneinthewild, Shadowssettle I am starting a discussion so we can gain democratic consensus and agreement on what parts to remove from the main article? Everyone may have different opinions, so we can better discuss to gain agreement and consensus. Robminchin was mentioning removing some details vs. whole sections. If so, what parts should be removed in peoples opinions, and are there any sections too detailed to make the summary concise.Mikecurry1 (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * So to start the discussion, I think with Robminchin said could help frame the differences in history sections between the two pages, "These allow for a lengthier treatment on the subpage, with only the most notable events presented concisely on the main page."
 * Some possible less notable whole sections to remove that could be kept on the sub page could be:
 * 1) A paragraph about 2002, The discussion of Imperial taking over UCL - the take over did not occur.
 * 2) A paragaph about 1912; this seems concisely said on the next line about 1919 already. Mikecurry1 (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * That seems sensible to me. I already removed quite a lot of parts which I didn't think anyone would have any objections to being unimportant enough to be removed from the summary, with the idea that it could be whittled down to something lighter, without the need to worry about the more peripheral details. If anyone has any objection to that change feel free to bring some of it back, it was just done to speed up the summarisation process, and make sure the interim summary was short enough that it could at least be seen as a suitable temporary summary, so that the articles weren't left ostensibly half-finished. I don't have much time to contribute to this at the moment, hence the occasional flash of edits, but those kind of changes seem sensible. Shadowssettle(talk) 18:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, sounds good! Nice edits and improved photos! Mikecurry1 (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Just FYI for all editors, I just recieved notice that the History of Imperial College London was just reviewed. So that is good.  Thanks for all your contributions.Mikecurry1 (talk)

The lead (again)
I know there has been a major discussion (and point of contention) over the lead before, but I think it might be worth bringing back up. I have made some minor adjustments recently that haven't seemed to cause anyone any issues, summarising the long list of museums and some very minor rewording, but I really think it still doesn't sit well.

For the opening paragraph, when someone comes on to the article, the first thing they're looking for isn't generally the year when Imperial College School of Medicine was joined into the college, or when Elizabeth II opened the business school. Other university articles (Cantab, Oxon, UCL, Dunelm, Harvard, MIT) focus on a briefer intro to the history to try to frame the background to the institution—the original formation out of Royal Colleges would seem appropriate, as well as important as some more notable people are associated with the colleges not Imperial, and it introduces well the background Imperial comes out of. The larger focus is on introducing the university; I would argue the focus on science, technology and medicine would be a higher priority. The rest can safely be moved slightly further down the lead (although I would personally disagree strongly with any focus on "prestige", it seems somewhat arbitrary and self-important).

Per WP:BOLD I have unilaterally decided to make the changes, which of course someone will unilaterally revert pretty quickly, and then we can get on with discussing the issue here to reach a consensus Shadowssettle(talk) 14:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I like the changes, although it could be argued that the business school doesn't really fall under any of the three areas. As I mentioned in previous discussions, I would like to see some mention of Imperial leaving the University of London and starting to award its own degrees in 2007, possibly in the second paragraph. 'Today' in that paragraph should probably be replaced with something more definite, as per MOS:RELTIME. Robminchin (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, although I still expect some contention to come as more people see the change. I have taken on your changes and integrated them, feel free to make further changes (as always). The second paragraph feels a little disjointed right now, although I wouldn't split it as it would be far to short otherwise, so it's all fine as far as I'm concerned, glad to finally be getting the really weird intro sorted out, given the amount of work that's been done on the rest of the article and elsewhere on related articles (Imperial College Central Library was DYKed).
 * On a side note, if anyone wants to help out clean up and expand some of the departmental articles, the departments of Chemical Engineering and Civil Engineering could do with a clean up, the School of Medicine could have some of its information transferred to the Faculty as well as a clean up (some of the course information is basically a prospectus, doesn't seem appropriate), and everywhere (except for Computing I guess) could do with expansion from relevant sources and news articles, especially the faculties. A lot of work has gone into some of them but much more can be done. The Faculty of Medicine probably has a lot of new sources available these days with Covid-19, which might be worth adding, I've moved some of it which was added here down to the faculty level leaving a summary here with a wikilink to the faculty. Shadowssettle(talk) 21:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just saw the changes and as you expected a revert :) I liked that the focus was not on prestige as much in this new version, and thought that was a big improvement. I agree with robminchin that business is now excluded from the intro as it does not fall under those three categories and the university also focuses on business too.  It is fine to add the U of L thing to the last intro somehow.  I agree with shaddowsettle that the second paragraph and intro is feeling disjointed.  For example, a fact that the campus is in south kensington is in the second sentence, after discussing the fact that the university focuses on science engineering and technology, then it discusses history again.  The history and facts are interwoven throughout both paragraphs. The feeling of disjointed is one of the reasons I prefer the last intro's organization.  the sentenes are the same.  I do like several ideas from this rewrite though and included them, particularly removing the focus on prestige.  Perhaps you can edit the original one to improve it futher to remove prestige and incorporate the U of L thing, while maintaining the organization.  Since a few minutes ago, I included your sentences now on the U of L and the rewrite of albert's vision sentence.  The other writing as far as I can tell is esssentially the same.  The only thing I maintained from the previous version is the organization from the original which was preferred with the history in the first paragraph and campus and organization in the second.  Your other edits on museums etc, were good too  All changes that were made were included, except for organization changes as the flow was better in the last version.  Mikecurry1 (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for heading to the talk page, I guess this is going to happen every year or so. As I explained above I don't think the details of for an article shouldn't be it's lead paragraph; that's not what the first paragraph of an article is for. The dates/information you moved back up were only moved down one paragraph (i.e. one line), because it's quite important, however it is non-standard to have them here.
 * What the first paragraph should do is provide the briefest of introductions to someone who doesn't know the subject matter. I would personally say:
 * what it is
 * where and when it comes from
 * what it does
 * where it is (to some extent)
 * would make sense. The main campus being in South Kensington to me seems to meet "first thing I need to know", however I agree that's more tenuous. However, the date of founding of the various faculties is not something you'd find on any (reasonable) university article's first paragraph.


 * On a completely separate point, I feel there's still a noticeable misunderstanding over the history of Imperial. Imperial is not directly associated with any of the institutions listed in the opening paragraph, only through history. They have been left as their removal was controversial in previous discussions, and much of this change was designed to be less controversial. To say it "Imperial grew [...] to include" is completely wrong statement, and that's how the current wording reads.


 * Also I just want to say I disagree with the whole "people reached a consensus long ago" argument; you can't use previous people's long ago consensus as there'd be no point in editing old articles. Anyone editing the piece who may have wanted to comment hasn't gotten involved since the last discussion over the lead over a year and a half ago, and everyone who has commented in the past few years has been open to discussion and change. Wikipedia is a constantly evolving, and not set in stone!


 * I have restored my explanations here to the previous state, as was the consensus two weeks ago, leaving points that are up for debate here and of personal opinion. Please give your thoughts, Shadowssettle(talk) 18:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Shadowsettle, I agree it is not set in stone. I am open to changes.  It appears you want to open up discussion.  The WP:BRD bold, revert, cycle you have been following does not give one person to impose their views particularly for an introduction of a big article, when a previous consensus has been reached.  There was no new consensus two weeks ago, and it does not deny and neglect the previous consensus reached by many users who contributed over time to form the prior introduction.  It is a lot to write a whole new introduction and erase the old one and expect it to be immediately used. :) I had maintained all your sentence edits, but there are problems with this new proposed introduction's organization of the lead. If the WP:BRD bold revert cycle was to start discussion, that is good. The previous organization of the lead proposed by biomedicinal had history, then the campus and organization, then academic profile and alumni.  Currently there is no proposed organization to this new proposed lead, where as you said it is really disjointed with the history across two paragraphs and campus and organization facts spread across both paragraphs.  I am therefore reverting it to the previous version (yet including all your new edits - except for the organization) that had a lot of consensus.  A new organization can be discussed on the talk page and not boldly implemented when there was a previous intro organization consensus, which will simply be reverted.  If you wish to change the organization of the lead of a big article it, of course, should be discussed.  It would be helpful if you want to update the organization, to start a talk page section, "organization of the lead".  Please research several intro proposals for how you would like the intro organized from various university pages, if you are proposing a new intro organization structure.  That way they can be discussed and together we can choose our favorite lead organization among several alternatives if you are proposing something new. For example the previous organization proposed by biomedicinal for Imperial had three sections - history, campus and organization, academic profile and alumni.  That way you can gain consensus on a new lead orgainzation if you did not like or want to update biomedicinal's proposal this was based off of.  Thank you for helping to come up with an improved introduction.  Mikecurry1 (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * There was a consensus for two weeks was there, and is what I was getting at; however I am fine with leaving it as is, obviously people have other more pressing concerns and don't edit continuously (especially right now) so you're right that my thinking it as a consensus may've been premature. Also, it's important to note that it's not widely accepted to revert solely over no consensus. If I recall, and have checked to make sure, the people involved in the last two discussions over the intro were you,, and myself. Robmichin has was the other user involved in the part-consensus (obviously feel free to dispute that Robminchin, I'm going by the thanks to the edit, and the support here earlier), and Aloneinthewild has not been active for many months, if they are are interested in getting involved it'd be great to get more thoughts on the matter. Biomedicinal hasn't contributed to here in over 5 years, (Feb 2015 by my looking through archives) and hasn't contributed to Wikipedia anywhere in over 1 year, so it might be hard to get them involved (again if you can that'd be great). In the meantime, coverage and consensus over what an intro to a Wikipedia higher education article has changed (gosh even the WikiProject name has changed WP:HED). We are not ruled by ghosts, and the edits made to the intro included the changes to their structure, and I have repeatedly explained the reasoning behind them. Yes, you're right in that a full consensus really should involve you, however the temporary (weak) silent consensus was that the page stands, and as it was an entire fortnight, I had thought that sufficient.
 * As consensus can change, I don't see how anything would ever get done under the maxim "but they did this many years ago". That is not how Wikipedia works; trying to involve relevant editors today is. If there was a clearer, recent consensus still in place, and we were going round and round against a larger consensus, then sure, that'd be quite different. But at least half the current editors currently involved are not against the change, that is not the case.
 * Arguing that there is no consensus however because one editor disagrees purely over tradition and pulls up old archives (argumentum ad antiquitatem it would seem) isn't particularly constructive. Right now the only other two editors involved seem to be okay with the changes, and consensus is not unanimous (although it's also a not a vote, it's an agreement), so unless you can argue on the merits of the edits, and argue against the merits of the proposed change, we'll have to go down the route of getting more WP:HED editors involved (which we maybe should anyway).
 * There is no need to create a separate section discussing the structure, you seem to have interpreted the proposed changes as split between structure and content, however the new lead was an intended rewrite including structure so this section would be appropriate for further discussion. It would really help if you looked into some of the concerns with your edits, rather than constantly restoring them, as they are introducing factual inaccuracies. Sorry if this message has come across a little strong, I am just trying to make sense out of the appeal to archives view. Shadowssettle(talk) 22:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am sorry if there was a misunderstanding. I have tried to incorporate all your content sentence edits, except for the structural change (which I also found disjointed).  Yes, this is not ruled by ghosts, I never said it was or should be.  At the same time it feels like you are offended by the revert as two weeks have passed since you boldly pasted a new introduction.  It takes editors time to see the new introduction.  Writing a new introduction to a vital article and pasting it there without a consensus was bold, and thus the obvious contention you thought would be there upon inserting a new intro to a vital article.  ("which of course someone will unilaterally revert pretty quickly, and then we can get on with discussing the issue here to reach a consensus";  "I still expect some contention to come as more people see the change.")  Still I have maintained all your new writing, and appreciate it.  I was trying to discuss your bold edit, but I feel you are feeling offended by the revert as two weeks have passed - even though you expected it and thought there was good reason for a revert, to allow for new discussion.   I am very open to discussion of it.  The only issue I had in the bold edit was the organization of it - which like you, I also found disjointed.  I prefer the organization Biomedicinal provided, but I am open to other organization for the introduction.  I am not sure the what it is, where it is, etc. is an organizational paragraph structure, so it is feeling like it is lacking flow.  If you can come up with a paragraph flow that is acceptable to others, that is fine to do it in that way.  Biomedicinal started a topic on organization of the lead that the article was written based off of I think.  It is fine to change that, but no new organizational structure has been provided currently, so it feels like it is mixing the history and facts together, so that's why it feels disjointed to me.  I understand that anyone including me is frustrated by a revert.  But it is important to understand that a revert is most likely if someone rewrites an introduction to a vital article without gaining a new consensus yet, of course it is going to have contention as you noted.  If you can come up with a new structure for the introduction, perhaps with several options you like, we can choose one and do our best to incorporate it.  It is also important to not view that we accept every change as good, but may like some changes and not others.  I have liked almost all your other suggestions, and incorporated them all.  The organizational structure was the only change I did not incorporate from your bold edit, everything else was included.
 * I am doing my best to incorporate your edits in a way that I think is pleasing to others too, as I appreciate the diversity of opinion, and creating and improving things - I do not view it as set in stone.
 * If you have a few organization paragraph structures to propose that you like, please propose them to gain consensus from others too.Mikecurry1 (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not offended at all, and I am agreeing with you I was premature in my belief that consensus could be assumed given it had only been left a fortnight. I don't (and shouldn't) care if my wording or edits are kept, I am concerned more with content coverage—what should and shouldn't be covered and where—and writing quality—hence the concern about disjointedness; please don't let my putting forward wording create any belief I'm trying to WP:OWN the article or want my specific edits or anything.
 * As I have stated previously, I don't feel the current structure with low precedence on the points outlined in bullet points above and high focus on putting all of a certain part of the intro content in each paragraph is a good structure. Instead it should flow from the most important stuff in the first paragraph and so on. This also lines up with what almost every other university article on Wikipedia does, so this shouldn't be controversial or an issue at all in principle, although the exact nature of what that means for this article is a different matter very open to interpretation. I do agree that the structure could be ironed out some bit further from the BOLD edit—it did read disjointed—and I am as always interested in hearing different new suggestions.
 * On an article-related note, many more images are now available on Commons, although any that would be relevant has already been integrated where appropriate; I don't think there is any need to rush to change images as they're currently quite good; this is just a note for interest's sake. Also, there are still some faculty and departmental articles with low independent citation counts: the Faculty of Medicine could probably do with some more given the COVID19 mentions in the news and attention the article has been getting. Shadowssettle(talk) 00:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with everything you just said. Thank you for not being offended by the revert to the bold intro rewrite.   Yes, all the content changes were appreciated and kept. I do not feel you are trying to own the article.  Thanks for underatanding that we probably could iron out the structure a bit before a major change, which was what I was trying to mention.  I think the structural change is of lower priority too and biomedicinal's proposed structure was fine until we can propose an updated one.  I also was a bit hasty to revert and could have looked at the content first, but instead as I saw it I first viewed the structure organizational changes more - which felt disjointed, so i reverted maybe a bit quickly without looking at the content proposal.  I was fine with all the content changes and tried to incorporate those.
 * Yes, that is a good point about the pictures on Commons. If you feel there are good images there please suggest and propose those (or insert them into the wiki as the proposal).  We can use the ones we gain consensus on and discard other proposals that are not fully agreed on by consensus.  I do like your new idea to replace one of the medicine picutres with one from covid 19.  That was a good idea and if you know of one, that could be great.  I generally find the images good too currently. The proposal of commons sound good though, and I am all for checking out or sending in my own proposals if we see them.  I remember we discussed above some images which we had full agreement for changing - which would be definitely good to incorporate.  Perhaps, if those are on commons in the future or somewhere else, those may be a good idea to include too. Best, Mikecurry1 (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

So let's look at the structure then, and consider the individual points of difference:
 * Focuses on science, technology, medicine and business current: paragraph 2, proposed: paragraph 1 – If you check out MIT and Caltech you'll find references to their being institutes of technology in their first paragraph. As it's something which strongly defines the college, it should be something that comes up first. What is Imperial? A STEM university. That's not a secondary point; it's what Imperial is. However, there are alternatives to how such information could be portrayed, should we mention that it is " a technical university" or something on the lines of it being sci/tech/etc. in the first paragraph, without listing what that means (using a couple words rather than a whole list), and leave the actual explanation of what that means to a later paragraph? Maybe, but that might continue the issue of proposed changes being disjointed.
 * History of mergers current: paragraph 1, proposed: paragraph 2 - If you look at most university articles, you won't find a history of mergers into a university right at the beginning of the article, you will probably find only things which formed the university. The dates and specifics of individual faculties (Medicine, Business) aren't particularly the first thing that should show up. Look at MIT you will not see Sloan School of Management in the intro, nor will you see anything similar about HBS at Harvard, nor Saïd or Judge at Oxon/Cantab. If this is a point on how it's important to talk about what the university does, then I feel the bullet point above would cover it. (after a thorough search I could find two articles that do what is currently done here, Caltech, which spends far too much on associations it's joined, and King's which does basically what this article currently does. This is against far more articles that don't do this (Harvard, Oxon, MIT, Dunelm, Cantab, Bristol, University College, Columbia, Princeton, Yale, just for starters). These articles have numerous other problems, however agree on "only the original foundational history", if any, in the first paragraph).

So, what do I propose? (numbered point per paragraph)


 * 1) What it is and how it started (i.e. the topline of what readers might want to know) – This would require the moving the sentence about it's realm of academics to the first paragraph, and moving out any intermediate history
 * 2) How it's been and where it is now – I agree with you that South Kensington probably should not be in the first paragraph (as the original edit put it), however, there is already history in the second paragraph (the UoL history) so I disagree that moving some history here would break everything wouldn't work (I know, that piece of history has been added since the previous structure, but Imperial's history in the UoL is at least as relevant as it's business school, for example). This would require the moving of intermediate history down a paragraph. I don't believe the first thing someone coming on to the college article needs to know is the foundation date for the business school or FoM, if it is they probably searched for the school or faculty, so maybe extending those article with more sources would be helpful. However, they define important stages in the expansion of Imperial's remit and influence, so are wholly appropriate for this introduction section.
 * The rest is unchanged.

(and others) your views would also be appreciated help build a wider consensus; your earlier agreement with the original changes may differ wildly from your thoughts on this structure.

On a separate note, my point about Commons was only that previously you'd been interested in more images being made available. Right now, there are hundreds of new photos of the college, a few of which have already been integrated across college articles. I'm not proposing any new changes to image usage here at all. Also, I think we might've got our wires crossed, as my point about the faculty was about cited information, completely separate from anything about images. As the faculty's departments are currently having a leading impact on UK and US coronavirus measures there have been more news articles about it, which might have more information that could be added to that article, part of a broader point that there are more articles on the college which could do with expansion if anyone is interested. Adding coronavirus images here would (a) be hard, and (b) seem like WP:RECENTISM, we can wait and see looking back on things if expanding such coverage would be appropriate. Shadowssettle(talk) 09:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey Shadowsettle, I am open to having the part about STEM in the first paragraph. I am trying to understand the proposed structure, but I am quite confused.  I still think we need to clarify the proposed new structure more, as I do not know "what it is" means? (academics) Or "how it's been or where it is now?" (history). I think you are more clear on this, but I am quite confused, and there will be multiple editors.  Particularly with having the history proposed in the second paragraph.  Maybe we can think about it more.  It would help to brainstorm a few models from other university wiki pages we like for the lead (prototypes), then we can vote on those.  I think for example the Caltech article mentioned has history in the beginning and the Stem thing there too.  ETH Zurich is interesting too with STEM in the lead.   We should also tag other users who contributed to this discussion previously so they can chime in.,  It needs to have a clear structure so that multiple editors will be able to conform to the paragraph structure.  Let's give it a little time to think about it, then brainstorm a few different model options, with prototypes from other wiki university sites.  I will start a brainstorm section below to brainstorm this orgsanization of the lead if you want to make changes to the lead structure, I am doing my best to incorporate them for all the editors.  That way we can think about it more for a bit and we are not rushing a structural change for the lead.Mikecurry1 (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Bullying scandal 2020
Obviously this is still a developing situation, but last night's Guardian report https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/dec/18/bullying-scandal-university-blames-clerical-error-for-changes-to-hr-policy implies that Imperial College may well need to reconsider their position with regard to the President and the CFO.

I've not edited the article at this point but it will certainly need it as soon as there's a bit more clarity. StephenJPC (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Good idea to include.Mikecurry1 (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

OFS is now investigating so this area of article likely to develop further. Cameron Scott (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)