Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Archbishops and bishops/archive1

Add links
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 not promoted by Dabomb87 21:46, 31 March 2009 [1].

List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Archbishops and bishops[edit]

Nominator(s): BencherliteTalk
Toolbox

Following the recent FL-achieving spin-off of List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Law and government from the main FL List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford, here's another for your kind consideration. BencherliteTalk 11:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
  • "Glyn Simon, who was a student from 1922 to 192"
  • "In the twentieth century"-->In the 20th century
  • "his 'Blue' for " Picky picky, but the quotes shouldn't be part of the link.
  • Not a deal-breaker, but I would prefer if em dashes were used instead of en dashes, something I forgot to pick up on your previous lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review Not very experienced with these but did some digging and it turns out "public domain" is a lot more complicated than I thought. Turns out being old doesn't necessarily make it public domain[2] and something being exhibited does not mean it has been published. Publication can start when the work was first reproduced.

Resolved image issues
*File:Alfred George Edwards.JPG – info is fine, but might not be PD due to no description of it when it was first published.


As I mentioned before, I am not expereinced at this so if you can get someone experienced to tell me I am speaking a load of rubbish that is also fine. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 16:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the joys of images. Will have a think and come back to this one. My first instinct, looking at WP:PD, is that this is a complete nightmare and I will probably just end up removing all the potentially offending images through an inability to fix. BencherliteTalk 07:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(update) I have nominated the images for deletion at Commons (one speedily, as I uploaded it; the others for discussion, as they were uploaded by the same individual who seems to have rather a lot of deletion notifications on his talk page). One way or the other, the good people at Commons will take care of this, either by deleting the images or fixing the problems. BencherliteTalk 07:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(update to update) At present, 2 out of the 3 discussions are heading towards "keep, proof of date of first publication not required for PD". Which is interesting. BencherliteTalk 07:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - out of interest, why didn't you put all the clergy into this list? That would have seemed more sensible to me - rst20xx (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought that there was enough here for a list by itself. The other clergy would add another 130/140 names (there are another dozen or so articles that would need to be written before I could say that I had written articles on everyone included in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography or the Dictionary of Welsh Biography), and I had thought of making that a spin-off list of its own in due course. However, particularly in the light of recent developments at WP:FL?, if people think that all the clergy should be here, I'll see what I can do. BencherliteTalk 07:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not too bothered but I would think it would be better that way - rst20xx (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments first up, no mention of the Boat Race, okay? Fine. Or else it'll be the Six Nations discussion, okay? Good... now, some comments...
    I have dual nationality and a third by marriage/fatherhood; it's a rare year when I don't win both the Six Nations and the Boat Race! BencherliteTalk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Lucky you. I'm just a Light Blue Angle. Nothing but disappointment for me... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rst20xx has a reasonable point here. A more comprehensive list would include all clergy. Although I admit that arch- and -bishops are inherently more notable, where does one draw the line? So, I would consider adding the others. It may mean you need to start the nomination again because of the volume of info you'd add, but.... maybe worthwhile.
      • Yes, I'm tending to agree, though it'd be more like 160/170 names more added, i.e. nearer 200 in total, because a number of clergy on the main list are included in other groups e.g. writers / historians, because that was what they were primarily known as. Let's see what we can do for now, though, shall we, to ease the journey next time? BencherliteTalk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't mind adding the rest of the clergy in. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Images which are portrait usually ought to take the "upright" parameter as well as the "thumb" parameter. This may make them similarly scaled horizontally (although I can't say definitively because it's so long since I used it...!)
      • Tried that on a preview just now, it doesn't. Can't find anything about the usage of "upright" at MOS:IMAGES. Doesn't seem worth it if it makes no difference, so have not done this. BencherliteTalk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suspect the MOS has changed in the past five months. I need to revise. Forgive me, once more. Ignore that one... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a reason you recapitalised the A for Archbishop in the title? (don't let me get into that again...!)
      • Ignore that, I was looking at a redirect, not the current title, mea culpa... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, you were right, I did recapitalise because Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists) has the specific example "List of foos: Physics and chemistry", indicating that a capital letter is appropriate after a colon in the title of a sublist even when the word is not a proper noun. I think it looks neater, too. Thoughts? BencherliteTalk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not convinced, got into a massive debate with Rlevse about Astronauts, or astronauts. Archbishop is not a proper noun, as you exemplify in your lead, nor is the capitalisation of non-proper nouns after colons grammatically correct (as far as I'm concerned)... I'm sure our naming convention is generally in good shape but, perhaps, just maybe it ain't right here... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a dash indicates that the individual graduated from another college" for sure? You're positive they all graduated and didn't "conclude studies" per your earlier note?
      • Reworded to "moved to another college before graduating or concluding studies". BencherliteTalk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Did not graduate: left the college without taking a degree" this may be a bit Oxbridge or just a bit picky, or maybe it's to help the non-Academia types, but is it not possible to take a degree and fail it (in common parlance)? "Left the college without attaining a degree"? Just trying to avoid "jargon"...
      • Someone's sharp today! I think that one takes exams and fails, but one can't take a degree and fails, but I've changed it anyway to "without obtaining a degree", which I hope works. BencherliteTalk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • " an approximate year is used for table-sorting purposes." - do you have any reasonable and citable basis for each estimate or is it your own idea?
      • If I had a citable date, I'd use it instead! It's based primarily on age and the standard length of degree courses. What I've been doing is e.g. where someone graduates at age 21 in 1971, then I put in a hidden date for matriculation of 1968 so that you don't get all the "?" sorting unhelpfully at the top. Or someone matriculates in 1965 and graduates sometime later, probably 3 years later in 1968, but no reference gives the year. The "OR" in both cases would be to put 1968 in plain text, of course, but is it still OR when it's (a) hidden and (b) said to be an approximate year for table-sorting only? I think it would decrease the utility of this and its companion lists to remove such information, but would welcome views. BencherliteTalk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • For sure removing your estimations would detract from the table. Leaving the note about your approximation leaves you open to accusation of OR. It's a hard one, for sure. I realise getting the citable dates may prove impossible.... Oh bother. I guess for the purposes of table sort and the fact you aren't "publishing" approximations, it can slide... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might just be picky again, but "coxed the college boat" is a tiny bit trivial really here. A Blue is one thing, but coxing the college is another. Even I've done that...
      • Yeh, but it wasn't the Jesus College boat, now, was it?! Nevertheless, text "bumped" from the article (sniff...). BencherliteTalk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No it wasn't. It was for the oldest light blue college. Two Olympic rowers mind you... only one of them Canadian... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you being consistent with page references? I see some with p. and some without. I would hazard a guess it's the template you're using but....
      • yes, it's the poxy templates. {{cite journal}} doesn't use "p." or "pp." in its output; I'm reluctant to add the missing letters because I'd only have to remove them if and when the functionality is added to that template to make it conform with {{cite book}}, for example. BencherliteTalk 18:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Understood. No problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Update: I asked at the template talk page why "p." and "pp." weren't added automatically, and apparently it's a deliberate choice because some citation styles don't use "p."/"pp." for journals, only for books. How helpful. So I've gone through and added "p." and "pp." for consistency, as it appears that this problem is here to stay. BencherliteTalk 08:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Jesus College, Oxford category is unnecessary as it is a supercat of Alumni of Jesus College, Oxford category.

Otherwise, despite the Thames thrashing, a jolly good effort. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to FL Director

I think we're done here for now. Consensus is that I should add the rest of the clergy to the list, rename it (TRM And I Can Then Discuss Some More cAPITAL lETTER issueS) and I can come back in a while. Suggest archiving this as I won't be able to get the clergy added whilst this FLC is in extra time. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 21:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How rude. But I suspect this a good thing. Shout at me immediately when you need a review... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_alumni_of_Jesus_College,_Oxford:_Archbishops_and_bishops/archive1&oldid=1138485636"