Talk:London Consortium

Notability
I notice this course is not mentioned on in University of London. It needs to be established that it is notable, and is seen as such by external bodies with verifiable reliable sources. Tyrenius 01:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Article has been expanded with more references and links. The London Consortium is not mentioned in the University of London entry, but it is mentioned in the Birkbeck College entry.
 * E1ijah 02:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not happy about notability. You're basically saying it's a course that several institutions endorse or participate in, but there doesn't seem to be any recognition beyond that at the moment in for example the media or scholarly journals or comments on it from well know people. I've posted some info on referencing to your talk page, so if you can put that into practice, we might be getting somewhere. Tyrenius 03:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I wanted to clarify something: this is not a course, but a masters and doctoral degree program. I am not sure why it would be subjected to more scutiny than the many other departmental and university department pages that already exist on wikipedia and have no more evidence of notability than this page. And it is widely known and mentioned by well known people, including but not exclusive to, those who teach and run the program who include some well known persons. notyouraveragebear

It is not subject to any more scrutiny than others. I have not seen the others. They may well need further scrutiny. There is a guideline Notability:
 * A topic is generally notable if it has been the subject of published material which is independent of the subject, reliable, and most importantly, attributable. The depth of coverage and quality of sources must be considered in determining the number of sources required and whether the coverage establishes notability. Multiple sources are preferable and should be independent of each other.

This article currently lacks that form of endorsement. It it is widely known and mentioned, then that would give the endorsement. Such mentions must be verified and should be referenced (see ref guide below).

Tyrenius 22:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi--I'm not sure if this is still a live topic, but I think the London Consortium is plenty notable, but that the article needs to be improved in order to make this clear. It is a major international doctoral program and is famous in academic circles for its eclectic interdisciplinary nature. More information about the novelty of the program--which was not without controversy--might be called for.

Guide to referencing
Click on "show" to open contents. {| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;text-align: center; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em; font-size: 100%; " ! style="background-color: #f90;" | Using references (citations)
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" style="text-align: left;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" style="text-align: left;" |

I thought you might find it useful to have some information about references (refs) on wikipedia. These are important to validate your writing and inform the reader. Any editor can removed unreferenced material; and unsubstantiated articles may end up getting deleted, so when you add something to an article, it's highly advisable to also include a reference to say where it came from. Referencing may look daunting, but it's easy enough to do. Here's a guide to getting started.

Good references
A reference must be accurate, i.e. it must prove the statement in the text. To validate "Mike Brown climbed Everest", it's no good linking to a page about Everest, if Mike Brown isn't mentioned, nor to one on Mike Brown, if it doesn't say that he climbed Everest. You have to link to a source that proves his achievement is true. You must use Reliable sources, such as published books, mainstream press, authorised web sites, and official documents. Blogs, Myspace, Youtube, fan sites and extreme minority texts are not usually acceptable, nor is Original research, e.g. your own unpublished, or self-published, essay or research.

Simple referencing
The first thing you have to do is to create a "Notes and references" section. This goes towards the bottom of the page, below the "See also" section and above the "External links" section. Enter this code:


 * ==Notes and references==

The next step is to put a reference in the text. Here is the code to do that. It goes at the end of the relevant term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers, and after punctuation such as a full stop, without a space (to prevent separation through line wrap):



Whatever text you put in between these two tags will become visible in the "Notes and references" section as your reference.

Test it out
Copy the following text, open the edit box for this page, paste it at the bottom (inserting your own text) and save the page:


 * ==Reference test==


 * This is the text which you are going to reference.


 * ==Notes and references==



(End of text to copy and paste.)

Information to include
You need to include the information to enable the reader to find your source. For a book it might look like this:



An online newspaper source would be:



Note the square brackets around the URL. The format is [URL Title] with a space between the URL and the Title. If you do this the URL is hidden and the Title shows as the link. Use double apostrophes for the article title, and two single quote marks either side of the name of the paper (to generate italics).

The date after The Guardian is the date of the newspaper, and the date after "Retrieved on" is the date you accessed the site – useful for searching the web archive in case the link goes dead. Wikilinks (double square brackets which create an internal link to a wikipedia article) function inside the ref tags. Dates are wikilinked so that they work with user preference settings.

Citation templates
You may prefer to use a citation template to compile details of the source. The template goes between the ref tags and you fill out the fields you wish to. Basic templates can be found here: Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference

Same ref used twice or more
The first time a reference appears in the article, you can give it a simple name in the

The second time you use the same reference in the article, you need only to create a short cut instead of typing it all out again:



You can then use the short cut as many times as you want. Don't forget the /, or it will blank the rest of the article! A short cut will only pick up from higher up the page, so make sure the first ref is the full one. Some symbols don't work in the ref name, but you'll find out if you use them.

Example
You can see refs in action in the article William Bowyer (artist). There are 3 sources and they are each referenced 3 times. Each statement in the article has a footnote to show what its source is.

Next step
When you become familiar with the process, the next step is to have one section, "Footnotes", with links embedded in the text, and another, "References", which lists all of your references alphabetically with full details, e.g. for a book:


 * Lincoln, Abraham; Grant, U. S.; & Davis, Jefferson (1861). Resolving Family Differences Peacefully (3rd ed.). Gettysburg: Printing Press. ISBN 0-12-345678-9.

If you're ready to go into it further, these pages have detailed information:
 * Citing sources
 * Citing sources/example style
 * Citation templates
 * Footnotes

I hope this helps. If you need any assistance, let me know.

Tyrenius 22:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * }

Notable Alumni
I started this section but it is only partial. Please add names if it seems suitable. Please maintain alphabetical order.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on London Consortium. 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/20050922061201/http://www.bbk.ac.uk/qa/programme/schools/london_consortium to http://www.bbk.ac.uk/qa/programme/schools/london_consortium
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130418102852/http://thelondonconsortium.org/ to http://www.thelondonconsortium.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)