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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 17 days, 4 support, 1 oppose. It's difficult to meet the objection in dynamic lists. Promote. Crzycheetah 07:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC) reply

• A list of alumni and academics, broken down into various sub-groups along the lines of List of Dartmouth College alumni (a FL). All names are referenced with a mixture of web and non-web sources. Note that whilst the Dartmouth list uses just "class date", Oxford works slightly differently: matriculation (entry) date is generally used for college/university purposes rather than graduation date, and so unless I could find a date for both start and end of study, I have played safe and used "?" rather than assume that a course was completed (or completed in the usual time). There are still some names that can be added from Category:Alumni of Jesus College, Oxford and Category:Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford and I will carry on adding names as and when I can, but only if proper sources can be found (not all those included in the categories have proper sources at present). So, I hope that you find it (a)(1) useful for bringing together existing articles by well-defined criteria; (b) comprehensive (bearing in mind the above); (c) factually accurate; (d) uncontroversial; (e) stable and (f) well-constructed. I think I've MOS'd it correctly; the lead is longer than the Dartmouth list; the headings are appropriate, I hope; and the only images added are all appropriate and acceptable for copyright purposes. With thanks for your time, Bencherlite ^Talk 15:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC) (update: all the Fellows are included) Bencherlite ^Talk 14:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose for now:

A. There a list of references after the 'politics and the law' section. All references should be listed in the references section at the foot of the article.

I think it got "forgotten" there. Happens to me al the friggin' time. Circeus 17:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Gone, before I even saw this. Was section-editing at the time! Bencherlite ^Talk 18:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

B. I think the images would look better in a separate column of the table.Circeus' idea is better

Otherwise, I think it's very well-referenced and the tables are well-constructed.

Geraldk 17:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Bencherlite ^Talk 18:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• Oppose
  • References are listed twice (!?)
  • I recommend splitting alumni propers and faculty into different sections. This would remove 3 columns from the "alumni" tables.
  • Run images alongside the table, especially since you're not illustrating every entry.
  • Switch "degree" for "course"
  • Try to make it so the table cells' sizes are consistent from one table to the other.
  • Remove the "see also". there's no overwhelming reason to link ot the categories that way. besides, the page is listed in both already.
  • Consider reducing the width of the lead image to 300px. 400 is a bit overwhelming.
• Circeus 17:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• • Thank you for your comments.
    • Done already, see above!
    • Disagree - the existing lists aren't split between "alumni" and "fellows", so I'm not sure what you mean. Are you suggesting rearranging the table so that there's one list of all the alumni and one list of all the fellows/principals? Or separate tables of alumni and then fellows for each subject area? Some fellows / honorary fellows are also alumni (e.g Neal Blewett, second entry; John Rhys scores a full house!) so you'd either end up with duplicates (confusing) or a three new sections: Alumni, Fellows, and "Fellows who are also alumni". I'm open to suggestions though, but I don't quite follow your thinking at the moment. Further update Done.
    • Will move them to the top of each section; I don't use tables/images enough to be able to put images along the side of a table, but if someone shows me with one I'll do the others. Otherwise, I'm happy to leave them out - not that many, anyway. Update Photos moved to top of each section. Further update Done.
    • Done.
    • Will try to improve, although it will be very difficult to get perfect. The reason is that I have eliminated the surplus columns deliberately (e.g. there are no Fellows, Honorary Fellows or Principals in the section "Other people in public life", so I removed those columns). So the width won't be the same if there aren't the same number of columns in each section - but to get them the same width, you'd need the redundant columns back! Update Have now standardized the width of the "Name", "Notes" and "Ref" columns (63% width, FYI) so that they line up all the time, and then divided the remaining 37% between the remaining columns as appropriate depending on the number of columns needed for each section. Less "jumping around" than there was. Further update Done .
    • Done.
    • Done.
    • Bencherlite ^Talk 18:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC) — updated Bencherlite ^Talk 19:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC) further updated Bencherlite ^Talk 09:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply
      • the existing lists aren't split between "alumni" and "fellows" Well, DUH! Those are lists of either alumni or faculty, while this one happily mix them together, so that each (most) entry (beside the occasional one that belongs to both) is cluttered with columns that are irrelevant to it.
      • I don't use tables/images enough to be able to put images along the side of a table It's doen the exact same way you'd palce an image on the right of any text: [[image:foo.jpg|right]] See Wikipedia:Extended image syntax toknow everything about images.
    • Circeus 02:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• We were at cross-purposes before. When I said "the existing lists", I meant the lists on this Jesus College page, not other Wikipedia lists. Sorry for the confusion. I thought it useful to keep the two together for the sake of those names who were students and Fellows, but I take your point about the number of redundant columns that this left. So I have now re-jigged the page, so that alumni are split from Fellows/Principals (with the occasional duplicate included in both lists for ease of reference). I have also removed the Honorary Fellow column and put this information in the notes instead. There are now no redundant columns, the column widths are uniform and the photos are at the side of the table. (I did know about "right" and "left" - I put the photos in the article using "left" and "right" originally, after all! - but the problem I had found was getting the images alongside the table at the same time as keeping the columns lined up perfectly. That, in turn, depended on how many columns there were, which is now resolved). I think I have addressed all the points now, but please let me know if there is anything else.
• Bencherlite ^Talk 09:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• outdent Much better, but now this highlights another iffy issue: comprehensiveness (criterion 1(b)). There are simply too many missing years and degrees, especially for 20th century people, for the list to be considered comprehensive. And a typography issue: use n- or m- dashes in "faculty" for those cells that are irrelevant, not hyphens. Circeus 17:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Second point is done. First point: adding as many more details as I can. Would I need every box filled to reach FL status, or would it be akin to having some redlinks in a list – or should I remove those with minimal details if no more info can be found e.g. Paul Jones, singer with Manfred Mann? (Perhaps I was being too ambitious in aiming to include details of the course studied (not a field included in the Dartmouth College or Georgia Tech FLs). There's also the difficulty of the double date as I explained above (matriculation and graduation) which wasn't an issue for those FLs either...) Bencherlite ^Talk 20:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I realize the issue with 19th century and earlier. But for those who entered/finished in the 20th, it should be possible to fill in the blanks. As it is, the other two lists restrict themselves to (I believe) graduation year, without degree. If that column can be reasonably completed (I wouldn't expect 17th century students to have years), That would be enough for me to support. Circeus 21:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC) reply

13 "?"s turned to information since you left that comment, and one new name six new names added with full details of matriculation, graduation and degree (at least for 20th century additions). Will see what else I can turn up. However, I am really struggling with some of the recent ones in the "authors etc" section where I can't find anything else on dates online, nor in my offline sources. Would it be best to remove those names for now? I would have hoped that the list could be regarded as sufficiently comprehensive (as in "not omitting any major component of the subject", the subject being their (sourced) association with Jesus College) either with their names in the list but not full details of dates/course or, alternatively, without their names but having regard to the comprehensiveness of the list overall. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC) update Bencherlite ^Talk 21:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Further update: nine further names added (some being people on Wikipedia who weren't included in the alumni category and needed extra tracking down) Bencherlite ^Talk 14:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• Support Great work! Three thumbs up! Circeus 20:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC) reply
• Support now. Geraldk 00:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Weak Oppose I find it hard to believe this meets WP:WIAFL 1b. Unless the timeline list is that of a reliable, verifyable third party it constitutes WP:OR. What makes this comprehensive? For example, why isn't there at least one more important person that could arguably be included in the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 23 July 2007.

• Tony, you've been copy/pasting this "weak oppose" on four different lists. This isn't a "timeline". This is a classic example of a "dynamic list", which merely has to not "omit any major component of the subject". To argue that point, you must have strong reason to believe it is deficient in this area (e.g. you can easily name some other people that aren't on the list but should be, or that a particular group of people seem under-represented). You can't simply challenge an editor with "how can this possibly be comprehensive" without a little evidence for your case. Please review the Featured list criteria, especially 1b. Post a request on the FLC talk page if you think there is ambiguity in the guidelines. Colin° ^Talk 09:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply
• All the members of category:Fellows of Jesus College, Oxford are included. The only members of Category:Alumni of Jesus College, Oxford not included are Dudi Appleton, R. Tudur Jones and Walter Evans-Wentz (plus Kathryn Davies, a categorized redirect to her husband) - in each case, because I have found no sources that confirm attendance at the college. Of course these categories and the list itself are never going to be complete: the college has over 425 years of history and it would be impossible to get a list that included everyone notable who had ever attended or been a Fellow. However, FLC doesn't require that everyone notable is included. If you can see that the list in its current form omits one or more "major components of the subject", please point them out, as further suggestions for improvement are welcome. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• Sorry for the sloppy copy and paste. However, there is no indication that the burden of proof lies with the objector. It seems that it is the burden of the nominator to show it meets the criteria. The fact that he can point to WP categories is not supporting evidence. WP is not a valid source for other WP articles ( WP:ASR). You need to tell me that something like the Alumni association or some third party has presented this list as the official list of notable associates. -- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply

OK. Specifically: "For example, why isn't there at least one more important person that could arguably be included in the list" is not a fair challenge since a dynamic list is allowed to be incomplete (and indeed usually can never be complete). To object on 1b, you claim that it does omit a major component of the subject. In the interests of fairness, that charge has to have a reasonable foundation. When I think of our FL dynamic lists, I'm struggling to think of any where the nominator could prove beyond all doubt that the list had no missing major components. The nominator puts forward his case, we examine the evidence and make a judgement. It is not an exact science. We expect both sides to present reasonable arguments.

With this list, I am worried that WP categories are being used to support the argument for comprehensiveness. On the two people-lists I have been involved with, WP's categories were vastly incomplete and occasionally wrong. Colin° ^Talk 17:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm not using the categories as evidence that the list is complete. In fact, I found many articles that weren't in the categories, even if they mentioned Jesus College at all. I fully accept that including the names from the categories is merely necessary, not sufficient, to show completeness (insofar as a dynamic list of this sort is ever "complete"). There is not, as far as I am aware, an "official" and fully comprehensive list of all notable people associated with Jesus College. That does not make this list "original research"; it just means that a list of this sort is inevitably always going to omit names of people who could be added. Again, does this list omit a major component of the subject? I assert "no", in that it includes a range of people from across the centuries (16th to 20th/21st), across fields of work (politicians, clergy, authors etc), and across countries. Bencherlite ^Talk 18:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• Support I suggest you compile a list of "potential names" on the talk page, beginning with any names missing that are in the categories or your external link. (BTW: Alberico Gentili is on that external link). That opens the door for other people to help locate sources. I'm not a fan of sorted lists since the implementation is so poor. Most of the columns don't make sense sorted. The name column doesn't sort as it should (surname, forename) and I believe this is possible with some template trickery (I can't remember the featured list I saw that did it). However, since you are splitting by category, some of the power of sorting (e.g. by date) is lost. I'd just drop the sorting, but its up to you. I recommend you combine some of the tiny categories into Miscellaneous. If you do drop sorting, you could combine M and G columns and give a range using an ndash. Additionally, if you want, you can avoid the Ref column like on List of polio survivors. These changes may allow for a wider Degree column. Colin° ^Talk 12:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorting in name columns: done. (<span style="display:none">surname, firstname</span> is what you were after.)

I think sorting is useful, albeit an imperfect tool. I split the table into sections to help find people from related fields, rather than search through the notes. I suppose that an alternative would be one large table, with a small column to allow sorting by area e.g. "Pol" for politics, "Sci" for scientists", rather than rely on sorting by notes (which is difficult to get consistent). Open to ideas as to what people think would be most useful.

I know I don't have Alberico Gentili, but I'm treating that list with caution: at least one name is referenced by a Wikipedia article (!), another name appears to confuse father and son (the son went to Oriel, according to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography), and another name (Austin Mitchell) has no known Jesus connection as a student or fellow (Google = nil, his Who's Who entry mentions nothing) (he may have been a college lecturer, but that wouldn't really count). So unless and until I find something else to confirm Gentili at Jesus, not just at Oxford, I'll leave him off.

I don't have strong opinions about whether a separate column for Refs is necessary.

Some of the smaller categories may expand as more names are added. If not, their existence can be reviewed in future. Bencherlite ^Talk 12:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Weak Oppose (contd) Why are there so many ? on the list?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC) reply

CommentIn truth I do not believe in good conscience I can remove at least a weak oppose. I do not feel this particular list should pass unanimously. I don't know if something can pass 3-.5 or not, but I think that is over 80% approval.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• Support - Appears to meet the criteria, and it looks good to me. Lara ♥Love 14:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC) reply