Talk:London School of Economics/Archive 1

message: I've removed a lot of the hyperbole that actually got in the way of the LSE story.  But there's a few inconsistencies around that someone may want   to help with...
* how many foreign students?  Part of the article says 70% non-UK students, another says 38% UK students.
* I'm not certain about the number of foreign countries represented in the student body under "general information" is it really > 130 non-EU countries?
* do we really need to list the subjects taught?  I'm not sure this adds anything
* What is meant by "The School is regarded as a pacemaker in the study of ..."?  And is there anything to back this up?
--Canthusus 18:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I've taken the list out of the main article again.  
* It duplicates the list at List of London School of Economics people, adding no useful value.  
* Having two lists is unnecessary, and confusing as they drift out of sync.
* The list that anon user user:81.110.151.176 reinstated is an old one that contains known errors (eg David Attenborough).
* It is far, far too long for the main LSE article, and totally unbalances it.  
* The key information that is directly relevant to the LSE article (number of Nobel Laureates, heads of state etc) is already incorporated in the article.  The detailed list of names is a link away.
Lotsofissues removed the list, with explanation on 6th January.  If that's not the right decision, we should discuss it here first, before putting it back.
I note that the list that user:81.110.151.176 put in is not identical to the one at
List of London School of Economics people.  I know it's not in alphabetic order, and I know it also has some errors, but there may be some good entries that can be merged into List of London School of Economics people.
--Canthusus 13:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that I am really pleased that the list is being moved from the main article for the reasons stated by Lotsofissues and Canthusus. There is however a lot of extra information in the list which has been developed on this page which is not yet in the other list. The information is far from duplicated. It should be merged and not simply deleted. [ This] is a deletion. [ This] is not a move. The list I [ reinstated] was the most recent version, so it can be properly merged. 81.110.151.176 14:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, yes I was sloopy -- intentionally.  The list looked so extraneous.  I didn't feel like spending 30 minutes comparing with the near duplicate list.  And, neither do you. :-P  So don't repaste; don't place a burden us--no one wants to do it!  Lotsofissues 13:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've copied the list over to the discussion page at Talk:List_of_London_School_of_Economics_people to make it easier for some noble person to trawl through and manually merge.  If there's good info, we shouldn't lose it (though I do vaguely wonder about the encyclopaedic value of such a list...).  I must say, I do think the current version of the LSE page does more credit to LSE and to Wikipedia than the old one which was just a giant piece of marketing hype!  (well, that's my POV)
--Canthusus 10:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of alumni 

message: Students desperate to DECLARE the greatness of their school will insist on more rankings.  But the banner waving looks just as prestigious as wearing an oversized polo logo  Take a look at the Harvard article for reference: minimal direct self-praise.  By the comprehensive article's end, you will hate their cool patrician I-know-what-you-think-but-I-don't-have-to-say-anything tone--that's the height of prestige.  Don't embarrass your school by feebly creating a trophy section.
Lotsofissues 22:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On excessive space given to rankings 

message: My view of you LSE-ers is quite dim.  Did you miss me enough that you had to vandalize my user page twice to bring me back?  Lotsofissues 02:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm back briefly 

message: Part of the problem was the long list of alumni - that's now in the talk page for List of London School of Economics people waiting for someone to merge it with the list there.  I believe that's the best place for it.  Does anyone disagree?  If so, please discuss here.
More to the point, does anyone want to take on the merge task?
: Done. It could still do with some weeding. zzuuzz (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant! Thanks, zzuuzz.  When you say "could still do with some weeding" do you mean get rid of wrong entries, or generally cut down the list?  We need to get rid of erroneous entries - I've taken out David Attenborough who got an honorary degree but never studied there as far as I can ascertain.  There may be more like that.  Personally, I'm not bothered about the length of the list apart from that - most of the entries are blue-linked, so presumably count as notable. -Canthusus 10:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I didn't really check for errors like Attenborough (Charles Saatchi?), and I left a few in the others section. Some are repeated (eg Currie, and Nobel winners), and not all are alumni graduates (eg Judge Jules and Mick Jagger). I think some of the descriptions could be improved. Otherwise it is much better. Wiki on. zzuuzz (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alumni list

message: How important are these to the encyclopaedia?  I can't judge.  The paragraphs read like so much hype to me - especially in early Januuary when there seemed to be half a dozen big collaborations going (and some revert-wars over the order of the names of the institutions).  All universities collaborate with others - what makes these collaborations noteworthy?
:Agreed. Collaborations aren't encyclopaedic.
::Agreed, in general. Collaborations should be given weight according to their percieved importance, not according to how much they're promoted on the official website. But I think there is room for a very brief mention of collaborations. All universities collaborate but not all with each other to the same extent. Relations with other unis is arguably an important indicator in the attitudes and affairs of an institution. In the most general sense, we must remember that wikipedia is not paper and we shouldn't be too severe in getting everything to prove its worth. Lets also remember that a number of people who read this article are considering whether to study there in the future and prefer to read a little too much info than nothing at all. Certainly, there has been some upset on other websites  about the deletions by Lotsofissues. Lets keep all this in mind. Sjjb 21:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Useful points about why the collaborations info might be relevant.  But please, can we avoid raking over who did what in the past?  Let's stick to improving the current article.  (I'm also a little concerned about letting this world encyclopaedia have its content driven by what people are saying in some students forum somewhere, but's not get into that!).  I think my problem with the collaborations was partly that I had difficulty understanding why they were there, and partly that they were phrased very hyperbolically & seemed to drench the reader with the same strong view.  So does it sound reasonable to mention the main collaborations, but keep the information relatively concise and factual?  Say a line or two about each? --Canthusus 22:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaborations

message: # should we add new sections at the top or at the bottom of a talk page?  I had been adding at the bottom, but I see that others had added to the top, so I'm following suit so as not to feel left out!
# this splurge by me is far too long!  But then I noted that a lot of the entries on this talk page are rather long.  Which shows that a lot of us seem to care a lot about the article.  I'm sure that between us we can get something decent going!
--Canthusus 19:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two asides

message: I checked this article a while ago, it used to be longer (granted a lot of it was boasting) even so this is one of the shortest articles I've seen for a university, especially considering that LSE is a fairly influential institution, can someone add more history and info?
:If you check the history of this article, you will find a great deal of information that was considered compromised by POV and was hence disregarded. However, as you say, much of this is salvageable. The article is definitely too short right now, and I don't personally know enough about this subject to edit it to the required standard. If you do, then be bold and expand the article as you see fit. Cheers, Badgerpatrol 22:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I signed up for an account and read the principles, I'll tinker and add a few more tidbits of info sticking to the NPOV. Here are some of the things I propose to do: Divid up the "general info" about LSE header into more meaningful titles, I was thinking of Organization, Campus, and Research. Under Org I would write about the LSE student union and its relation to the University of London, under campus the history of the buildings, under research I would provide a list of the names of the research institutions and laboratories with links. sound good?
*::You've done a splendid job.  It's informative, interesting, and NPOV.  
I still disapprove of a separate rankings section.  
Lotsofissues 03:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is too short 

message: What are the chances of getting accepted to LSE, either having a 2.1 or First class honours undergraduate degrees? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mulloom2 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2.1 Degree 

message: *What was the reasoning behind putting the cleanup tag on the main page? --DMG413 14:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup tag

message: Would anyone object to putting the new LSE red box symbol over the info box and place the actual seal of the university inside the box instead? ArchonMeld 00:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seal

message: Another broad acronym, mostly used in referance to the sciences, is the "Golden Triangle"... I question whether this term is in broad use to describe the OxLondonBridge axis, but I won't remove it unless someone else has an objection. I certainly have never heard of this term outside of the NS article linked in the text. In addition, I can't see any specific reference to the LSE in that article, so it does seem rather redundant. A previous edit specifically mentioned that this 'Golden Triangle' DID NOT include UC, although I note that the linked article refutes this completely, extensively talking about UCL and quoting their provost- but makes absolutely no mention of the LSE at all (as a separate entity). I'm confused.  Badgerpatrol 16:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Golden Triangle

message: In the intro, it claimd that LSE is the leading social science institution in the world.  The reference is to an advertisement for LSE on LSE's website.  There needs to be a better reference. Rkevins82 14:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leading social science institution? 

message: I'm not sure that the Hayek Society merits it's own article since it exists on at the London School of Economics.  It appears that a merge was suggested with the original aFd but I don't see that it was ever further acted upon.  James084 21:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better if there was an article about student organizations at LSE. Until that article exists, it would be pointless to talk about a merge. I'm removing it from the Hayek Society article. Intangible 19:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Suggestion 

message: (I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.)
There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#University ratings. Timrollpickering 00:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: University ratings