Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Old Wykehamists/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of Old Wykehamists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this list of notable pupils of one of the United Kingdom's oldest schools for featured list because it is now a mature article. I gave it its present structure some years ago, adding many of the citations and images. The list will continue to grow (rather slowly) when people from the school become notable. I hope reviewers will find it interesting and informative. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
;Quick comments
|
- I made a few little tweaks and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support from KJP1
[edit]collapsed details
|
|---|
|
Hi Chiswick Chap - long time no see, hope you're keeping well. You're certainly keeping busy with this labour of love. It certainly meets the FL criteria to my mind and I'm pleased to support. A few comments below that don't stand in the way of this.
Down to 1870. Will need to stop and come back. KJP1 (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
Right - that's my nitpicking over. It's a grand list, fully meriting the bronze star. KJP1 (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TRM
[edit](WikiCup entry)
the general one.
That's all I have on a quick run-through. I only spot-checked a handful of references, so there's plenty more to look at. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More from TRM[edit]
That's enough for a first pass on the refs. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] More from TRM ii[edit]
The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is the "Chancellor" in the lead perhaps Lord Chancellor? Wykeham is listed at List of Lord Chancellors and Lord Keepers after all.... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support my myriad comments addressed to my satisfaction, very good work. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One last question, how do you know this list is comprehensive? Are you sure that other alumni haven't been overlooked? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The list cannot be comprehensive as the boundary of notability is constantly being explored with new articles on Old Wykehamists of long ago, and as new members clearly worthy of note (like Rishi Sunak) continually appear. However, the list is mature in the sense that it has been developed over many years now, and has been contributed to by many hands. If Wikipedia had a core of 'specially notable' people, they would certainly all be present. Or to put it another way, if another encyclopedia developed such a list, it would be substantially similar to this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand, so that means it really should have {{incomplete list}} added to it I believe. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, done, that is formally correct but it does seem a bit drastic! Probably others will discuss the matter 'in slow time'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand, so that means it really should have {{incomplete list}} added to it I believe. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The list cannot be comprehensive as the boundary of notability is constantly being explored with new articles on Old Wykehamists of long ago, and as new members clearly worthy of note (like Rishi Sunak) continually appear. However, the list is mature in the sense that it has been developed over many years now, and has been contributed to by many hands. If Wikipedia had a core of 'specially notable' people, they would certainly all be present. Or to put it another way, if another encyclopedia developed such a list, it would be substantially similar to this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from Woody
[edit]This is following on from TRM above, but I'm sorry at the moment I have some concerns surrounding the scope and how comprehensive the list is: so FL criteria namely 2 and 3.
- FLCR2:
"It... defines the scope and inclusion criteria."
The lead doesn't define the scope and inclusion criteria for the list. What are you defining as notable, or in terms of the lead what do you take as "distinguishing themselves?" Where is the line drawn? This becomes particularly pertinent for say sportspeople, is it playing one game in a top league, is it winning the league, is it playing internationally? Which barristers are you including? Which politicians: cabinet level, MPs, Privy Counsellors? etc
- Only those at the highest level, as defined in the criteria (see below): cabinet level politicians; generals in the army; royal academicians in the arts. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- FLCR3:
It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.
I simply can't see how an article with a "this list is incomplete" meets 3a.
- That tag is because of TRM above, and against my clear instincts. The list is as comprehensive as much careful editing by many hands could make it. I think that with the new criteria, we should be able to remove it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- General comment
- We don't normally have categories in see also sections. The list is already in the category and so anyone wanting to go to the category would go to the normal category link,
- Fair enough, removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is an extraordinary amount of work that has gone into this article and having almost 400 correctly formatted citations is in itself an achievement. I can't support at the moment though as I don't feel it has an adequate scope and inclusion criteria. Put another way, what justifies someone's inclusion in this list vice the 1,381 people in Category:People educated at Winchester College? Woody (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course you are free to hold that view, which I'm sorry to hear. I and other editors have included the Old Wykehamists who have distinguished themselves as described in the introduction and the body of the list. There are marginally-notable people who have had articles created for them; obviously I'm not responsible for the notability criteria. Attempting to include all is, I'm sure, pointless; if that's really the only way any such list can be defined then of course it's impossible to bring any such school list to FLC, which I think would be a sad outcome. Very few schools are as old as Winchester, and few have had such a distinguished list of former pupils. The list as it stands is of clear encyclopedic interest whether readers are interested in education, politics, or any of the fields in which Old Wykehamists have distinguished themselves. I doubt if I can do anything to convince you, though if there is anything you want done, feel free to say what it is and I'll address it, but perhaps other editors will feel able to take this list as it is, a solid contribution to the lists here on Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don’t get me wrong, I don’t disagree that it is a good list and it is certainly a solid contribution to the lists here on Wikipedia but it doesn’t meet the Featured List Criteria, namely 2 and 3. I certainly don’t think that all of the people who have an article on Wikipedia should be on this list. My issue is that this list, as it stands, does not have an objective set of inclusion criteria. There is nothing to say why they are included, what distinguishes one cricketer from another, or one politician from another? What distinguishes them? If you develop an objective criteria section in the lead then I would support it as it would then meet the FLC criteria. Something along the lines of: national recognition; for politicians: members of the privy council or cabinet post; for sportspeople: represented their country etc. Woody (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, let's do that; I've extended the lead as you propose. Happy to tweak the criteria slightly but the level is I think pretty clear. Do you think for sportspeople it's enough to represent the country once, or would three times be better? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I level is clearer but not a defined criteria yet. Nor do some of the people in the list meet the newly established criteria. From the first 2 I checked: why is Lionel Johnson included? Same for Thomas Arnold? In terms of representing their country, that is up to you but 1 seems fine, particularly given the time scale (ie 100 years ago they played significantly less games than the modern era). Woody (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Woody: Fair enough. I've checked through the list and removed 78 individuals using the new criteria. On those examples, happy to drop Johnson as a minor poet, but Arnold was one of the great headmasters with a national reputation. Happy to sharpen the criteria further, if you'll let me know what needs adjusting or clarifying. For early sportsmen, one competitive match may be enough, but that must be for a county team or above; playing a few times for their university is not sufficient (specially if it's out for a duck). Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I level is clearer but not a defined criteria yet. Nor do some of the people in the list meet the newly established criteria. From the first 2 I checked: why is Lionel Johnson included? Same for Thomas Arnold? In terms of representing their country, that is up to you but 1 seems fine, particularly given the time scale (ie 100 years ago they played significantly less games than the modern era). Woody (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, let's do that; I've extended the lead as you propose. Happy to tweak the criteria slightly but the level is I think pretty clear. Do you think for sportspeople it's enough to represent the country once, or would three times be better? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don’t get me wrong, I don’t disagree that it is a good list and it is certainly a solid contribution to the lists here on Wikipedia but it doesn’t meet the Featured List Criteria, namely 2 and 3. I certainly don’t think that all of the people who have an article on Wikipedia should be on this list. My issue is that this list, as it stands, does not have an objective set of inclusion criteria. There is nothing to say why they are included, what distinguishes one cricketer from another, or one politician from another? What distinguishes them? If you develop an objective criteria section in the lead then I would support it as it would then meet the FLC criteria. Something along the lines of: national recognition; for politicians: members of the privy council or cabinet post; for sportspeople: represented their country etc. Woody (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support on images from Shearonink
[edit]- All of the 18th Century and earlier portraits/Commons files lack the applicable/pertinent/specific United States public domain tags, the one that seems applicable would be {{PD-US-expired}}.
- Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the 19th Century images lack a/an US public domain tag.
- Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the photos after Christopher Miles have appropriate tagging/licensing information.
- Noted.
- The Christopher Miles image is problematic because of the uploader's claimed authorship. Merlin Energy claims ownership of 2 different Miles images, separated by 33 years...which is indeed possible but seems highly improbable...
- Removed, just in case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keeping accessibility & MOS:ACCIM in mind all the images are lacking alt text.
- Shearonink (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Gosh that was a bit of work, all done now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Much improved, however these 2 images still lack alt-text: William of Wykeham, Sir Henry Wotton. Once the alt-text for these two images is taken care of I will be able to support re: images. Shearonink (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Shearonink (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.