Talk:List of Old Wykehamists

In fiction
The article has long had a detailed (and to my mind interesting and informative) In fiction section, written by a long-departed editor. However, the material was mainly cited only to the primary sources, i.e. the fiction books themselves. Another editor has seen fit to remove all of that, leaving the section as a somewhat inviable rump. I suspect that primary sourcing is not exactly wrong in this situation, but obviously reliable secondary sources would make the material indisputable. For now, I'm putting the table here, in the hope that someone will take up the challenge of restoring the material and citing it to modern standards. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

As the "long-departed" editor in question, I must say that I do not see the reason for applying the "secondary sources" rule in this context. OK, for history, the point is that primary sources may be wrong and secondary sources are needed to sort them out. But if the very proposition we are establishing is that "primary source X says Y", surely the primary source is sufficient: if Trollope's Barchester Towers says that Francis Arabin was at Winchester, how can you possibly say that Trollope thought that Arabin was a fictional OW but could be wrong, so that we need secondary confirmation? The whole thing is only the product of Trollope's brain! Also, I do not understand by what principle the later editor left in the few examples that he did.

I would favour putting the whole list back; though we may need page references to the novels in question. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd very much like to see the list back, but I agree that (at the least) we require exact page references, preferably supported by a direct quotation in each case. I'd have thought this although primary quite sufficient for an entry in a table or list: it's not as if we're writing an entire article on each item. Of course, if we can locate a few more secondary sources, or even better one good one that covers a dozen or so of the table entries, that would be helpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, in the absence of progress, I guess you're right, there's no special reason to retain the rump list; and perhaps the fictional list belongs in a separate article, not here, though again it would need at least a bit more sourcing to save it from deletion. A complete list of primary sources would I think be easily enough for that purpose, though a few secondary sources would guarantee its safety. I shall remove the rump from the article now, and suggest that if anyone would like to work on it, they do so in their sandbox and then launch it as a separate article, with a "See also" link from here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)


 * It's taken until a rainy day in November to sort this out, but I've today created Winchester College in fiction which includes, extends, and substantially cites the table from here. There are more entries to cite, if anybody is so minded ... Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Robert Vane Russell
Robert Vane Russell attended but I'm not sure for how long - I'd guess he should be in the 1880s decade section but if anyone can clarify that would be great, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 05:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Page name
Hi. I was curious if anyone ever brought up whether the name of this page should really be called List of Old Wykehamists? I'm not sure what the alternative would be, but List of notable former pupils of Winchester College or similar might be more descriptive. "Old Wykehamist" as a term only has 5.5k non-Wiki hits and interestingly, one of the two sources in the intro used to cite the term's use (here) explicitly calls it out as "jargonistic". Just wondered while passing through, and I won't exactly be knocking at FLRC to have changes made to this impressively-researched page. Steve T • C 21:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the thoughts, and the kind words. The term may not have many online hits (why would it) but is actually quite widely used in printed sources of different kinds, from novels to politics and sport. The question of whether we shouldn't have a word like 'distinguished' in the title is another matter, and would have some justification. And I've replaced the source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Further culling?
Peter Scott and Roger Winlaw are a couple of names I chanced upon that don't seem to me quite to match the criteria for inclusion given in the lead (national recognition, top of profession). One played cricket for Oxford University and twice earned the MC in the war, the other had 9 games with Surrey. So if we include them, I suspect that others deserve mention. Chiswick Chap wrote that he already culled scores of names at the time of the FA assessment, so I am reluctant to be bold without bringing this up here. Should we remove such entries or modify the criteria? Or should we live with some inconsistency so as to advertise the odd interesting story? In any case I would defend applying editorial discretion rather than setting too rigorous rules: some professions are less formally assessed than others, and some of significance have died young before anyone had a chance to honour them. Jmchutchinson (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think they should be culled. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Titles and honorifics
The plain intention on this page has for several years, and all through the long formal review process, has been to present the information as plainly as possible. Titles like "Sir" and post-nominals like "KCMG" are not used. They add nothing to the list of people concerned; anyone interested can follow the links to the articles concerned, or indeed to the cited sources, to read more. The entry for each individual here states their name, their profession and indicates as briefly as possible their practical achievement, that's all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Henry Chichele
Whilst many sources claim that Chichele studied at Winchester College, I dispute this claim. He studied in Winchester under Wykeham from 1373 and progressed to Oxford around 1379. However, the college was founded in 1382, operational in 1394. Perhaps there is a source that explains this discrepancy. Otherwise, an explanatory footnote will suffice (under Wykeham in Winchester, but not "Winchester College"). Godtres (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's disputable. I think we should say something like that "it has often been claimed that", and perhaps footnote it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! Godtres (talk) 07:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)