Talk:University of Leicester/Archive 1

Archive 1

The Attenborough Brothers

There is no mention of either Sir Richard or Sir David Atteborough whose childhood home was the university campus and who both have strong ties with the university. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.6.89.132 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Nor about their father, Frederick, who was Principal of the University College. Why not add something about them yourself? --JRawle 13:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Alumni

Should we create a leicester people subcatagory, i think there may be enough people on there to warrant it now, any opinions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.112.64.142 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. JRawle (Talk) 23:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Leicester's Status

Can anyone explain where Leicester fits in to the catagorising of UK universities, is it considered proto-red brick, or plate glass, also why isn't it a member of either the Russell or the 1994 groups? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.3.50.60 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC).

It doesn't fit into any category really, and in any case categorising doesn't always make sense. I'm not sure why Leicester didn't join (or wasn't invited to join) the Russell group, as it's now comparable with those institutions (may not have been when the RG was formed), or why it didn't join the 1994 group either. It's not plate glass (founded far too early, and given full university status a few years before the Robbins expansion), I've heard it described as red-brick though that really only applies to the universities founded between the 19th century and the end of WW2. "Proto-red brick" would mean first or earliest (I think that's an error in Red Brick universities). --ajn (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Those categories don't really make sense (I do hate the way everything has to be labelled...) Therefore I may as well suggest the term Yellow brick – if you visit the campus, you'll see why! JRawle 15:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Though 'redbrick' originally referred to Victorian universities (usually in far more industrial cities than Leicester and due to the actual colour of the brickwork used in their construction), Leicester University, founded in 1921, is classed as a redbrick university (and yes, the campus itself actually contains very few red bricks- there is more grey and yellow brick and glass)- Paul Wilde (Picnico) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Picnico (talk • contribs) 20:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

---

[big chunk of text removed]

If you feel it neccessary to debate the various merits of universities visit a student forum, such as www.thestudentroom.com. Wikipedia discussion pages are for discussion of the article, not general debate. Tomber —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tomber (talk • contribs) 16:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Bob Mortimer?

There is no mention of the University of Leicester on Bob Mortimer's biography article, where it states that he is a graduate of the University of Sussex. --TheoClarke 21:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think his article is wrong and this one is right. This page University of Leicester web page suggests he went to Leicester, and not Sussex. Also "Bob Mortimer"+university+Leicester scores more google hits than "Bob Mortimer"+university+Sussex. Rje 20:31, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Here's a better link: [1]. Rje 20:44, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

John McVicar?

On John McVicar's article it states he obtained a degree from the Open University, not Leicester. Sparky132 12:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I used to know people who were staff at the time and remembered him. This[2] says he did an external London degree while in prison, and a postgrad degree at Leicester when he got out. This[3] agrees, and it's what I understood too. What's questionable is whether he did an Open University degree rather than a distance-learning one from London. --ajn (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Notable faculty / alumni

These lists are getting ridiculously long now, with one or two names being added nearly every day. Therefore I propose removing all but a handful of the most famous, and adding the rest to appropriate categories, Category:Academics of the University of Leicester and Category:Alumni of the University of Leicester. We can then add See also Category:Academics of the University of Leicester, etc. to the top of the subsections so that people can find the whole list.

I suggest copying the structure of Category:People associated with Imperial College London for example. This solves the problem of where to put the Attenboroughs, as they can go in the parent category.

Anyone have any comments? JRawle (Talk) 00:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is a good idea User:Tomber 10:46, 2 November 2006

University ratings

(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 22:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The University website says it has moved into the top 20 in the Guardian League tables, this should probably be updated. Also to the above post, I do think the Times and the Guardian are good sources for the rankings but maybe we could find other sources than Newspapers, do they government do OFSTED reports like they do for school :)

Tallest Paternoster

The article claims Leicester has the highest paternoster, but surely the 78m, 20 storey Arts Tower at Sheffield Univeersity is higher. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.40.34 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Media/Pop Culture

They mention the University of Leicester in House M.D - Season 3 Ep 16 - I thought that was pretty cool, with reference to this research: http://www2.le.ac.uk/ebulletin/news/press-releases/2000-2009/2007/03/nparticle.2007-03-05.9006371083

Alot of pages have a popular culture section but this doesn't thought I'd put the info here instead if anyone wanted it --~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.167.74 (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

School of Management

The school of management has alot of distance students especially in Asia and across the world, but it hasnt been included in the main article. Please discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.74.79 (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

University structure

The entire section headed 'Academic Achievements' is very substantially wrong in both general and specific details and does not bear any relation to the current structural organisation of the university.

I replaced this with an accurate, objective description of the university's structure (which changed in 2009 from five faculties to four colleges) but this change has been undone. Can someone explain why? And how this change can be made?

Disclaimer 1: I work in the University's marketing department and have been given the job of correcting the outdated and inaccurate material on this page. Disclaimer 2: I have no prior experience of editing Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.210.121.134 (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what you had written sounded like promotional material for the university, and consisted mainly of bullet points, rather than being written in an encyclopedia style. As I read it, the "Academic achievements" section is not meant to be a description of the structure of the univerity, but just highlighting achievements in certain areas. There are indeed some incorrect references to faculties that should be changed to reflect the college structure, but that doesn't mean replacing the entire section with a description of the structure.

If you are unsure of how to go about the edits, perhaps it's best to detail what's wrong on this talk page, then leave it to other editors to correct the article. You could give links to pages that explain the college structure on the university website. JRawle (Talk) 16:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The article at present explains the current organization of the university in the 'Organisation' section, so I don't see any need for the long lists of departments. The deleted edit did introduce some useful content about recent achievements, but without reliable citations it is no more reliable or valuable than the material it replaced. So, what really needs to be done is for someone to add a lot of references to support the various unsourced (but probably truthful) claims that the article contains at the moment. Any factual errors could then be discussed on this talk page. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of the information in the 'Acdemic Achievement section' is accurate, some is inaccurate or out of date. But the section as a whole is arranged and presented in a completely random way that does not relate to the Uni and, through unjustified emphasis/omission, completely distorts and misrepresents the range and content of the uni's research and teaching. Surely it would be more useful to people reading this page if information on the Uni's academic work was presented in a way that relates to the Uni's academic structure. Why is social science lumped in with arts and humanities, for example, when they are entirely unrelated? Why is engineering singled out above all other departments? Why is the medical school listed in a completely separate section? Why are chemistry, geography, geology and most of our other departments not mentioned at all? Do you see the problem?

To address just one specific sentence: "The University has scientific research groups in the areas of astrophysics, biochemistry and genetics." This is meaningless. We have four research groups in specific areas of biochemistry, five in specific areas of genetics, six in specific areas of physics/astronomy (including one group researching Theoretical Astrophysics) and about 40 other research groups across our various science departments. There is nothing special or noteworthy about astrophysics, biochemistry and genetics.

Incremental changes to this page over time, based on individuals' personal interests or knowledge, have created a miasma of incorrect information and there is no possibility of this page becoming an accurate, factual, objective description of its subject matter without major surgery. Verifying/deleting individual statements won't affect the fundamantel distortion and misrepresentation of the university's structure, areas of interest and achievements. The attempted edit, incidentally, was not written in any way as promotional material and anything which might be considered as such was removed before the text was added. If we wanted to sneak promotional blurb onto Wikipedia, I wouldn't be announcing myself as working for the Marketing Dept (though I am not, I should stress, a marketing person!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.210.121.134 (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, the section does not have to follow the structure of the university. It should highlight examples that will be most interesting to the general reader. It doesn't have to give an achievement in every department just to be fair to them all. Let's face it, some departments in the university are more highly regarded than others, not that anyone from the marketing department would admit it. I agree that the statement about astrophysics, biochemistry and genetics is meaningless. But presumably, it should say "world-leading research groups" or similar.

My suggestion, as before, is that you draft the section as you would like to see it on this talk page, just below the discussion. Other editors can review it before it's added to the article. That way, we can make use of your knowledge of the university, while providing a safeguard against conflict of interest which is clearly an issue if officials from the university are editing this article. JRawle (Talk) 20:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm genuinely unclear how making a subjective judgement about which departments are most "highly regarded" is more in keeping with the objective aims of Wikipedia than just saying what subjects are taught at the University (ie. a list of departments).

Adding "world leading" to that sentence about research groups would simply compound the problem. Either this page lists all our research groups (which would be tedious as there are dozens) or none of them. Any groups singled out for mention must surely include some (referenced) indication of why they have been singled out. But an unexplained, random list of two departments and one group serves no-one.

The deleted edit is linked above. Perhaps anyone who feels strongly could identify which parts of it need changing. As far as I can see, it's a mixture of dispassionate, ojective information about subjects taught and a few paragraphs about academic achievements copied verbatim from the current page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.210.121.134 (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right that information needs to be sourced. So if the article highlights certain departments, it should be because they are highlighted elsewhere, for example in the media. I'm sure there are more articles in the mainstream media about Genetics or Astronomy departments than many of the others. If a general reader from abroad looks at the article becasue they've heard about the university, they will want to read about what it's best known for. They won't want to read a boring list of every department, which they could get from the university website. Now, no-one who works for the university marketing deparment is going to like that, becasue you want to sell the institution as a whole, but unfortunately it's a fact. JRawle (Talk) 21:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither I nor the University is interested in "selling" anything via Wikipedia. We just want to correct inaccurate and misleading information. We would rather see dispassionate, objective information about the University than a random selection of anecdotes dictated by the interests/beliefs of one or two individuals. "I'm sure...", "they will want...", "they won't want...", "it's a fact." Would you care to substantiate these claims?

I could understand your concern if the Uni was underhandedly trying to sneak marketing blurb onto this page, but we're not. We're being open and honest about trying to strip away misleading/inaccurate text about what is or isn't 'important' - based not on citations but only on what a few people are "sure" about - and replace it with incontestable, objective facts about the nuts and bolts of the university. A quick check of nearby unis shows that the pages for Loughborough, Lincoln, De Montfort, Derby and Nottingham Trent all either contain lists of departments or present information based on the University structure. Of East Midlands unis, only the pages for Nottingham and Northampton don't do this, but they both use general topics such as 'research' rather than structuring their information around random groupings/divisions of the uni's constituent parts. So what justification is there for the current structure of the Leicester Academic Achievements section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.210.121.134 (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Societies

"One of the things that the University is most proud of is its societies with the Students Union." doesn't make sense. At least, it isn't idiomatic English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.0.220 (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to re-word this section. --Tbirdcymru (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me, Tbird! If you want to stick with this, I would suggest further editing it to remove the concept of "most proud." This strikes me as speculation on the part of whoever wrote it to begin with; is there a way to determine, with confidence, what characteristic generates the most pride from the university? It's also not exactly the dispassionate tone one would expect of an encyclopedia. (Of course, if a high quality source makes a strong assertion about the university's pride in its societies, you can disregard this!)

Additionally, I think that too many headings for very short subsections can be a little disorienting to the reader. I'd consider removing the subsections under "Media groups" and rewording, so that it reads as a more cohesive piece of prose covering the newspaper, radio, and TV stations. -Pete (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Pete yes I had a though maybe I should re-word the 'proud' ... but I just left it there for the time being. Thanks for your helpful words,.... lots for me to learn. --Tbirdcymru (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Photo

University crest does not appear on the connecting Facebook page, hence the main photo must be re-uploaded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mling411 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Lush Radio

Should this really have such a long section in the article? Would it be better as a seaprate article like the Ripple? Discuss. JRawle (Talk) 10:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better sitting within the Students' Union entry. There is a societies section there and it could then just link from the main University's page? Folding (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As an alumnus of the University who was part of the original incarnation of LUSH, I can tell you the H was supposed to stand for Harmony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.2.70 (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

As a current member of the the university, it's important to note that Lush Radio rebranded several years ago (2015, I believe) and is now Galaxy Media, which includes both Galaxy Radio and Galaxy Press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.224.161 (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)