Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Old Wykehamists/archive1


 * 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).

List of Old Wykehamists

 * Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

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)


 * I made a few little tweaks and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from KJP1
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.
 * Many thanks for the comments and support. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Order of names within century
 * what order are you following? It's not chronological as, for example, Richard Pace, c.1482, postdates William Horman, c.1440, who sits below him. Would alphabetical not be easiest for the reader?
 * It's meant to be chronological; Pace's estimated date has changed. Reordered those two.


 * Sixteenth century
 * John White/Thomas Bilson/Arthur Lake - not sure why their bishoprics need capitalisation? You don't elsewhere.
 * Fixed.
 * Henry Marten - Link Judge of Admiralty?
 * Done.


 * Eighteenth century
 * William Douglas, Duke of Queensbury - much though I like rake and gambler, it’s not really an occupation! Aristocrat and gambler? Landowner and gambler?
 * Fixed.
 * Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth - not actionable, but interesting Winchester's produced only one PM, and that the ineffectual Viscount Sidmouth. "Pitt is to Addington...." Actually, you could action it by replacing the image of Williamson with that of the school's only PM (see Images below)!
 * Noted.


 * 1820-1839
 * James Dewar - link Crimean War?
 * Done.
 * Philip Lutley Sclater - link Zoogeographer? It's a new one on me.
 * Linked.


 * 1840-1859
 * Samuel Rolles Driver - lower case Biblical?
 * Done.
 * Leonard Howell - link Wanderers?
 * Done.


 * 1860-1869
 * Frederic Thesiger, 1st Viscount Chelmsford - you've got him in twice, here and in the 1880-1889 section (10th down). He belongs here, I think, but I think you should put in the notability you have below, i.e. governor and viceroy.
 * Good catch, fixed.

Down to 1870. Will need to stop and come back. KJP1 (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * On we go. KJP1 (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 1870-1879
 * Jack White - being picky and old-fashioned, I'd go for uncapitalized trades union organiser but our main article doesn't so feel free to ignore.
 * Noted.


 * 1880-1889
 * George Mallory - mountaineer who died on Mount Everest?
 * Said on first three British expeditions there.


 * 1890-1899
 * John William Fisher Beaumont - don't think The Bombay High Court needs a capital T.
 * Done.
 * Spencer Leeson, Headmaster and bishop - as above for H
 * Godfrey Rolles Driver, Biblical scholar as above for B
 * Godfrey Rolles Driver, Biblical scholar as above for B


 * 1910-1919
 * George Jellicoe, aka Viscount Brocas, soldier-statesman, businessman-diplomat - not sure about these hyphenated jobs. Just commas?
 * Done.


 * 1920-1929
 * Sir Jack Boles - link National Trust?
 * Done.


 * 1930-1939
 * Alasdair Milne - link BBC?
 * Done.
 * Michael Howard, 21st Earl of Suffolk and Berkshire - link Berkshire Earldom as well as Suffolk?
 * Done.


 * Victoria Cross and George Cross holders
 * "one Old Wykehamist won the George Cross in military circumstances and another Old Wykehamist won the George Medal in military circumstances" - the close repetition is a bit jarring. Perhaps, "one Wykehamist won the George Cross and one the George Medal, both in military circumstances/situations"?
 * Thanks, done.
 * And, any reason you're not listing the George Medal holder? I'm assuming he's in here somewhere, List of recipients of the George Medal, 1940s? Although he may not have an article, he surely warrants a mention and minimal redlinks in lists are permissible.
 * Let's think about that one, but good to hear that it's feasible at a pinch.
 * Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Images
 * Richard Williamson (bishop) - absolutely get that Wikipedia's not censored but, given the abundance of choice, does this repellent, anti-Semitic nut job deserve the prominence of a photo?
 * My feeling is that we show the rough with the smooth.
 * Absolutely take the point. I was pleased to include John Vassall, the gay spy, in the list of my alma mater’s alumni! But Vassall’s dead and Williamson is, at least to my mind, regrettably alive. And, while I’d of course agree he should be in the list, the choice of photos is selective. Anyway, I’ve made my point and it’s not a criteria issue, so I’ll just get back to the list. KJP1 (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Right - that's my nitpicking over. It's a grand list, fully meriting the bronze star. KJP1 (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments from TRM
(WikiCup entry)


 * What is "Chancellor of England"? Is there a link?
 * A historic role roughly at Prime Minister level, and it seems the answer is no.


 * "New College, Oxford in" comma after Oxon.
 * Done.


 * Our article on the college says it was founded in 1379, not 1382.
 * Said "establish".


 * "give an education for" give ... to   or provide  ... for.
 * Done.


 * Might be worth linking "boarding house".
 * Probably best not, as this is a specialised kind.


 * "By the 21st century" well, I think you really mean as of 2020?
 * OK, but that is of course an immediate hostage to the clock.


 * Would Field marshal (United Kingdom) be a more appropriate link or were there foreign FMs?
 * Updated link.


 * Bomber Command should probably be piped to the RAF one, fortunately Fighter Command redirects.
 * Done.


 * It looks like you're linking positions with specific articles, so you could link List of Head Masters of Eton College.
 * Done.


 * I would link Gunpowder Plot as this is well-known to Brits but probably not outside these shores.
 * Done.


 * You exclude "Sir" in Fiennes' link in the lead but include it Ryves in the list (for example). Be consistent.
 * Honorifics removed throughout.

the general one.
 * Suggest you use the UK-specific Poet laureate article rather than
 * Done.


 * Likewise Prime Minister.
 * Done.


 * "of Winchester," Winchester what?
 * Fixed.


 * Explain ZSL before using abbreviation.
 * Done.


 * Wingfield Fiennes article lists him as a clergyman as well as a cricketer...
 * Done.


 * As does Copleston.
 * Done.


 * And Haygarth is noted as magistrate. Etc. Etc.
 * Done.


 * You don't link cricketer but you do footballer, what's the strategy?
 * Unlinked.


 * "Savoy Opera producer," no need for capital O.
 * Fixed.


 * You note FRS for Hardy and no-one else, why?
 * Removed.


 * Director of the Victoria and Albert Museum has an article.
 * Ingenious, linked.


 * "Irish Citizens Army" no s.
 * Fixed, a case where "helpful" redirects aren't.


 * "Trade Union organiser" why the capitals?
 * Removed.


 * Check image captions, complete sentences (e.g. Dowding) take a full stop.
 * Added.


 * Darling is noted as a "first-class" cricketer, many of the others were too, but not noted, why?
 * Removed.


 * You link "mountaineer" but not "postmaster-general", I  would do it the other  way round.
 * Done.


 * Link Proust.
 * Done.


 * Prime Minister of Northern Ireland has an article.
 * Linked.


 * As does Marshal of the Royal Air Force.
 * Done.


 * Bombay High Court could be linked.
 * Done.


 * Sinclair's honorifics (KCMG CB OBE) are mentioned, was he the only one to get any? What's the strategy here?
 * Removed.


 * Chief of the General Staff (United Kingdom) could be linked.
 * Done.


 * Note A is unreferenced.
 * Replaced note with book ref.


 * Multiple pages in references should be pp. not p.
 * Fixed.


 * Check all possible field are complete for the refs, e.g. ref 426 is missing the author, 433 has no publisher/work.
 * Fixed.


 * CricketArchive or CricketArchive?
 * Formatted as "website="


 * And not all CricketArchive links have the subscription required padlock showing.
 * Fixed.


 * Spaced hyphens should be replaced with spaced en-dashes, e.g. ref 88.
 * Fixed.


 * Philip French has an article so can be ed in the ref.
 * Added.


 * BBC News links almost invariably have a publication date, e.g. ref 332 is missing 26 January 2003.
 * Added.


 * Sometimes it's The Telegraph and sometimes it's The Daily Telegraph, be consistent.
 * Daily it is.


 * Sometimes you link the work/publisher, sometimes not. Pick a consistent approach to this.
 * Links removed.


 * ISBNs should be consistently formatted.
 * Done.

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)
 * Many thanks, very useful. Done all of these to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)}}

More from TRM

 * Huge amount of whitespace at the beginning, consider limiting the table of contents to level-2 headings only.
 * Thank you for the suggestion. However, the table can be collapsed just by pressing "hide", and the navigation is certainly valuable.
 * Well it's a shame because it's off-putting when loaded. And you do say in the lead "The individuals listed are classified by century of birth" so you could limit the TOC to centuries and not mis-lead anyone. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * And after 15 years, I've just discovered that if you hide a TOC on one page, it hides it on every page, and that is very unhelpful! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it is an odd gadget.
 * You could have a tinker with horizontal TOC? That way you get a TOC but all the whitespace goes away and we're left with an elegant looking article! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I played with it, hmm. I'd not have thought this really an FLC matter but for the sake of peace and harmony, the vertical TOC|limit=2 is certainly better than the horizontal variety so let's go with that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I'm looking at WP:WIAFL 5a "visual appeal". And for me, the massive whitespace left with the regular TOC was completely visually unappealing.  But glad we could find a compromise!  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The following comments are usually linked to a specific reference, but the theory behind each comment should be applied across all references, I don't aim to repeat myself too many times....
 * Noted.


 * Ref 27 needs en-dash in year range.
 * Done.


 * Several online sources don't have accessdates, several do, what's the strategy?
 * Checked all, fixed.


 * Ref 32 needs en-dash. Check others, I won't note this again.
 * Done.


 * Britannica is sometimes linked and sometimes attributed to the CUP. Be consistent with each approach.
 * Checked and fixed.


 * Ref 52, isn't that a work?
 * Done.


 * Ref 58 has neither a publication date nor an accessdate. I would expect at least one of those, check all the other sources for this issue.
 * Done, and checked. It is the only ref using that database template.


 * Ref 104, publisher is OUP, no? Check other uses.
 * Added (so we now say Oxford Index and OUP). There was only one other instance.


 * Ref 111 etc, spaced hyphen should be an en-dash.
 * Checked and fixed all.


 * Ref 141, needs space after p. for consistency.
 * Done.


 * Refs 142 to 144 are the same, re-use.
 * Merged.


 * Ref 146 year ranges need en-dashes, check others.
 * Fixed.


 * Ref 168, avoid SHOUTING, check others.
 * Fixed all.


 * Ref 172 appears to be missing a publication title?
 * Title was correct, added Publisher.


 * Ref 231 link Burke's Peerage. Why is it repeated?
 * Removed repet.


 * Ref 238, isn't Who's Who a work?
 * Fixed.


 * Ref 245, 255, 260 etc. en-dash and be consistent with the formatting of Wisden and ESPNcricinfo.
 * Fixed and checked.


 * Ref 250, could link T. S. Eliot, and these days we space the initials.
 * Done both.


 * Ref 253, notable writer Clive James can be linked. Check other authors.
 * Linked several.


 * Ref 272, space before semi-colon?
 * Fixed.


 * Ref 275, what makes winchestercollegeatwar.com RS?
 * Fixed; publisher is Winchester College.


 * Ref 278, The Guardian is a work.
 * Fixed.


 * Ref 282, date range needs en-dash.
 * Fixed.


 * Ref 315, link National Oceanography Centre.
 * Done.


 * Ref 416, what makes rookiemag.com RS?
 * Replaced ref (The Guardian)


 * Refs 408, 417, 418, missing publisher/author information.
 * Added.

That's enough for a first pass on the refs. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

More from TRM ii

 * Ref 18, isn't the The Catholic Encyclopedia a work?
 * Fixed.


 * And per ref 19, does it have "The" in the title?
 * Fixed.


 * Ref 22, 74, 166 etc, en-dash in year range.
 * Fixed.


 * Ref 24, etc, book refs need page numbers.
 * Replaced ref.


 * Ref 48, etc, be consistent with the linking.
 * Linked.


 * Ref 181, 219, 379 SHOUTING.
 * Fixed.


 * Refs 193 & 194 are the same.
 * Merged refs.


 * Ref 214, what is Ran? Should it be Rank?
 * Fixed.


 * Ref 242, 252, Cricinfo format.
 * Fixed.


 * Ref 250 malformed.
 * Fixed.


 * Ref 279 should be en-dash in date range.
 * Done.


 * Ref 212 vs Ref 217 vs Ref 307. All seem to be the same work but each formatted differently.
 * Fixed.


 * Ref 341, link Debrett's.
 * Done.


 * Ref 244 vs Ref 209 vs Ref 384 vs Ref 262 vs Ref 343 etc. All seem to be the same origin but all formatted differently.
 * Fixed.


 * Ref 360 no longer works.
 * Replaced ref.


 * Ref 370, 389, Debrett's wasn't italicised previously.
 * Fixed.


 * Ref 392, is The Gazette really The Gazette?
 * Fixed.


 * Ref 397, 414, publisher?
 * Fixed.


 * Ref 406, en-dash in title.
 * Done.


 * Ref 420, Telegraph in italics.
 * Fixed.


 * Ref 421, CricketArchive was italics before.
 * Fixed.


 * Ref 433, 436, publisher/work?
 * Fixed, replaced ref 436 with Winchester College source.


 * Ref 439, ISBN different format.
 * Fixed.


 * Ref 442, RS?
 * Replaced ref with book.


 * Ref 443, previously linked Gazette.
 * This is automatically formatted by Template:London Gazette; perhaps the template doesn't link supplement entries.
 * Refs 436 and 437 seem to do it just fine... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There was a "nolink" parameter in there. Another small mystery resolved. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

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)
 * Good find, done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support my myriad comments addressed to my satisfaction, very good work. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Oppose from Woody
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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 people in Category:People educated at Winchester College? Woody (talk) 11:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * : 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)

Support on images from Shearonink

 * 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.
 * Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Many of the 19th Century images lack a/an US public domain tag.
 * Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Keeping accessibility & MOS:ACCIM in mind all the images are lacking alt text.
 * Shearonink (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Gosh that was a bit of work, all done now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. Shearonink (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. -- Pres N  03:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.