Jump to content

Talk:London South Bank University

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stuff that needs to be added to the table

[edit]

Have added the LSBU logo to the page. If you find (or know) any of the information set out in the university template, please add the info to this page or the table itself.--Dab182 15:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University ratings

[edit]

(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 23:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category for students and alumni on Wikipedia

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: London South Bank University has been created for all current LSBU students and alumni editing Wikipedia. MRSC • Talk 11:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Distance

[edit]

I've removed the lie that it is 5 minutes away from the South Bank. This article is full of spin which needs dealing with. Secretlondon (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation and ranking of LSBU

[edit]

LSBU is notable for consistently placing near the bottom of university league tables, whether they are constructed on the basis of teaching, graduate employment or other bases. I inserted a paragraph referencing this, and it was deleted on grounds of "bias". Not clear to me why this is the case, but would welcome others' comments.LeContexte (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that your edit is solely intended to deteriorate　the reputation of the university. You just brought some rankings to make the university look bad. Wikipedia is not a place to deteriorate something. And your refs are not properly done. Please learn how to ref correctly.Wikipedian05 (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be assuming my bad faith. If you think these are an unrepresentative selection of rankings and there are others which present a different impression, then please add them. If, on the other hand, you think it is inappropriate to note LSBU's consistently terrible rankings then you need to explain why, because this isn't at all clear to me. They meet all the usual requirements for relevance and reliability of sources. Very happy to accept help from people who are better than me at wiki. 08:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Have added the available Institution rankings, and in the format found on the majority of the other UK University pages, this should hopefully resolve your biased / selective statistics argument. 83.104.51.74 (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball team

[edit]

The following text was deleted from Diego Prado Jaramillo and placed here if someone determines it is notable to include in this article:

In 2008 the LSBU team were invited to Kingston Jamaica to attend the Utech Inaugural Basketball Classic tournament accompanied by their coach, Steve Alexander. The four team tournament, which also included GC Foster, University of the West Indies (UWI) and hosts University of Technolody (Utech) went on for battle on the 27–30 November. LSBU went into the tournament with an impressive record, having won the United Kingdom university championship and representing the country at the European Basketball Championships.

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20081125/sports/sports5.html

File:Phil Spencer Oxford 2008.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Phil Spencer Oxford 2008.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Phil Spencer Oxford 2008.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on London South Bank University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 19:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London South Bank University. 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:

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

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updates and corrections

[edit]

In ranking and reputations text, the Guardian rankings are out of date. LSBU is now ranked 92 of 121. Can someone please update this? Some other links of interest: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/russell-group-elite-tumble-in-top-law-school-rankings/5061137.article http://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/south-bank-uni-scraps-big-plans http://feweek.co.uk/2017/06/06/desperate-college-seeks-university-take-over-before-merger-consultation-even-begins/ Current VC is also chair of Million Plus group, which LSBU is part of: http://www.millionplus.ac.uk/who-we-are/governance Logos are also out of date. Due to COI hoping someone else can take the facts from these and update accordingly. LSBUStephMasters (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done rankings. Not sure "University not to redevelop site" really merits inclusion. Note about Lambeth College. No independent cite for "Million Plus group", so who cares? COI or no I imagine you can fix the logo yourself; be careful with the fair use rationale. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks LSBUStephMasters (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TEF rankings

[edit]

Will TEF rankings be used on university Wiki pages? If so, LSBU has been given a silver rating: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/teaching-excellence-framework-tef-results-2017 LSBUStephMasters (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have inadvertently forgotten to mention that everyone gets gold, silver, or bronze. The casual reader might assume a silver rating means "almost the best" when what it means is "somewhere in the middle", and if it were inserted it would have to be carefully worded.
Please bear in mind also that if you look over every set of university rankings in every subject and carefully select the ones where LBSU looks good, we'll notice. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"In the first government-backed Teaching Excellence Framework assessment in 2017, which ranked the quality of teaching across UK universities and applied either a bronze, silver or gold ranking, the University was awarded a silver ranking." Just a suggestion to include at your discretion, reword as you see fit, but I think it's a relevant metric. LSBUStephMasters (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Economist ranking

[edit]

Hello, New rankings by The Economist have been released this week. Is it possible for the below, or something similar, to be included in Rankings and Reputation? LSBU was ranked 32nd out of 125 UK universities for “value added” by The Economist magazine, which used published data to analyse the “value added” by individual universities to their students, based on actual and expected earnings. [1] LSBUStephMasters (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doing this. If another disinterested editor wants to, fine, but I think they should beware of the way that this COI account is cherry-picking rankings where LBSU looks good in spite of its overall dismal performance. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pinkbeast: I saw this page after LSBUStephMasters posted to the Teahouse asking for assistance. Can you explain what you are referring to as the user's cherry-picking? There are already sources in the article which state less favorable rankings and on its face to me it doesn't seem unreasonable that they would simply want another point of view on the page. They aren't asking for the others to be removed AFAIK. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They will only ever present good rankings since they're a PR flack for the university. Are these occasional high points in a sea of bad rankings? Seems plausible given the university's overall abysmal performance. If so, putting a series of the good rankings that can be found into the article until they swamp the bad overall ranking isn't presenting "another point of view"; it's presenting a misleading impression of reality. The "cherry-picking" is the search for good rankings in that hypothetical sea.
Hence I think we should exercise caution. If a disinterested editor feels the article needs more rankings - I don't - I recommend they go and chase some down themselves and try and present a set that represents how the university is typically ranked. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pinkbeast: "overall abysmal performance" is not a neutral judgement - perhaps the rankings can speak for themselves. As 331dot says, I have not asked for any other rankings to be removed, or used in my suggestion any language to inflate the worth of this ranking or the university's result. The Economist is a well-read and regarded publication, and a 'value-added' league table is not repeated elsewhere and has different criteria to the rankings already listed. LSBUStephMasters (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The rankings do speak for themselves - somewhere between 92nd and 120th out of circa 120. That is abysmal performance; if the Sunday Times is correct, the university is one of the very worst in Britain; if the Guardian is correct, it is merely exceptionally bad.
I'm not sure why you're bothering to point out you haven't done things I haven't said you've done, save as a sort of smokescreen. What you are doing is carefully selecting the few areas where the university is ranked highly and trying to use that to mask its overall abysmal performance. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request :
Hello, I am here in response to a request for a Third Opinion. I have had no interaction with this article in the past and I have never interacted with either of the participants of this dispute before today.

It's my opinion that Pinkbeast is correct to be wary about allowing this additional information to be added. According to several reputable sources, the university is low down most rankings and adding this information would likely mislead readers as to the true value of this University.

To ground this opinion in policy, I believe the policy of maintaining a Neutral Point of View, with the specific details located under the subsection of WP:Weight, covers this. There is clearly a majority of sources that support the low value of the University, enough to the point that adding the information stated above would be a violation of this policy.

Thank you. -=Troop=- (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/08/daily-chart-5

Sunday Times

[edit]

Hello editors,

Just leaving a link here regarding the 2018 Sunday Times Good University Guide results released just over a week ago.

The university was ranked 106 overall, and named University of the Year for Graduate Employment.

Two links here: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/good-university-guide-2018-in-full-tp6dzs7wn

http://www.cityam.com/272527/london-university-has-been-named-best-graduate-employment

Please include at your discretion.

LSBUStephMasters (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London South Bank University. 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:

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

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London South Bank University. 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:

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

checkY 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

London South Bank University Students' Union listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect London South Bank University Students' Union. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 19:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:London_South_Bank_University&oldid=1216764022"