Talk:Westminster School/Archive 1

Listing of OWW

I've managed to locate a (substantially) longer list of OWW, which I have edited down to (what, admittedly, only I consider) more 'interesting' individuals, and reproduce below. However, as it's rather long, I've not put it in the main article...

[Snip: List of former persons, as it was long and of no real importance to a 'discussion' of the page]

Saying (1234-) rather than (born 1234) seems more suitable to me, being consistent with how the dates of those who are no longer alive are displayed, and so easier to read, as well as being (minorly) easier to edit when one of the list dies...

Also, I'm not sure why people are listed as 'English author' or 'British playwright' as opposed to merely 'author' or 'playwright'; is the nationality so terribly important? --James F. 23:47 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

Well done for finding all those people! Yes, it is a bit of a problem deciding what to do with lists when they get too long. We could have a separate page, List of former pupils of Westminster or some such thing, similar to List of notable Oxford students. I don't know. But I don't like the idea of cutting lists down based on a subjective view of who is "worthy" of inclusion. For one thing, it's inherently POV, and for another, it would be nice to have a complete index of everyone in the Wikipedia who went to the school, all in one handy list - or set of lists if it gets over 32K!

Writing dates as "(born 1966)" rather than "(1966-)" is part of the Manual of Style: "it's clearer and less morbid to use the word 'born', rather than leaving a hungry space for the death date". I agree with the style guide. Writing the dates the other way looks terribly evil, almost as if we're impatient for them to die so that we can sort out that dangling hyphen...

I put in the nationalities for consistency with how people generally seem to be described on their biography pages, e.g. "Seamus Heaney (born April 13, 1939) is an Irish poet", and so on. Usually, knowing the nationality of a historical figure is useful as a quick guide to the context in which they lived. I admit that it looks odd to do it on the page for Westminster School, since there won't be many people there who aren't considered to be British, but on the other hand, consistency is nice...

Oh, and please could you tell me your source for Martha Lane Fox's year of birth? (Do you happen to have the exact date, for when she gets an article?) I tried looking for it in various places, but couldn't find a definite year! -- Oliver P. 01:05 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

Splitting off a list of former pupils seems like a good idea to me. But then, if we're leaving behind a list of 'notable' pupils, we've got the same argument again as to POV coming in to things. Also, shouldn't the heading 'Former Pupils' itself be a link to the listings page, as used elsewhere (though I forget exactly where)?

Hmm, I suppose having the writers of the encyclopaedia looking vulture-like wouldn't be too good a thing. ;-)

Possibly there could be a line saying "all persons listed below are/were British unless otherwise stated", instead of identifying each positively?

Westminster School's own site lists Martha Lane Fox's year of birth as 1973, and I suppose they'd be most likely to know :-)

--James F. 02:30 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

I've put the past pupils, including those in your list, at List of former pupils of Westminster. Let me know what you think of that idea.. -- Oliver P. 01:28 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

As I've (just) said, it seems like a good idea to me.

--James F. 02:30 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

---

I really think that Dido Armstrong should be listed as such, rather than as Dido, as that's her name. --James F. 02:33 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I've just removed the list of past pupils from this page altogether! There's a link to the long list, under the heading now. Does it look all right? If there are pupils who played a major role in the history of the school, they can be woven into the general article, I think. Are any of the people on the list not British? I'm not entirely sure about Louis Theroux, for example, because he was born abroad, and his father is American, although Louis was brought up in England. I'm not 100% sure what the criteria for Britishness are, I'm afraid! -- Oliver P. 03:09 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

No problem about replying.

I think that there should be /some/ people listed os OWW on the main page; my point was that, as the editors of this encyclopaedia, we're exerting choice anyway, and listing persons who are 'major' to the extent of familiarity with many of the general public, either being very famous historical figures (e.g. Dryden, Hooke, Wren, Milne, etc.) or those currently part of pop-culture, such as Adam & Joe, Louis Theroux, Dido, etc. wouldn't IMO alter the NPOV-ishness of the article... Also, I was thinking that the (short) list of former pupils could be be-heading-ed as "== Former pupils ==".

Currently, the (legal) 'criterion for Britishness' is that the person holds (or is able to hold) a British passport; of course, that's not greatly useful :-) I don't think that any of the persons on the list were non-British when attending the school, but I'm not sure. Of course, Arthur Middleton signed the Declaration of Independence, and Charles Pinckney ran for POTUS-ship, so they arguably became American. Should we list them as American, though, given that no such label of nationality existed in the period that they went to the school? Perhaps "(American to-be)"?

-- James F. 03:38 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

I dislike links within headings almost as much as I dislike subpages, actually. :) And as for judging who is or is not "major", argh, I don't like it, since it's all just a matter of opinion... Is there a list on the school's website? If so, we could just put that in, and say, "The following former pupils are listed on the Westminster School website", and that would be a NPOV statement, and we wouldn't have to worry about making up our own criteria for inclusion in the list. Oh, and if people became American, we can call them "American", I think. -- Oliver P. 03:50 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Hmm, well, headings-as-links is used on at least 3 of the pages linked to from the Brilliant Prose page, so... I disagree that Westminster's own list would be NPOV, it'd just be SomeThirdParty'sPOV, and STPPOV isn't necessarily NPOV; however, yes, I have gleaned most of my list from Westminster's own listings, but also other places (many found from careful Google searches). And, really, they didn't so much become American as create Americanism, but hey... ;-) I would be uncomfortable with describing them as American with regard to thier schooling, however. Just my POV, of course.

-- James F. 08:45 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

OWW re-selection

Here is a start at deciding which few names of alumni should go on the main page rather than the longer list only: rank by Google hits. It is rather crude, but at least a little objective.

Here is the raw list, with the search terms I used. I'll upload my ugly little perl script to Wikipedia:Ranking items by Google hit count.

This could be the basis of the shorter list, by taking the first few. However, exclude obvious overestimates due to common name or part of name: John Brown, maybe also William King. Cutoff below 20000 hits seems reasonably, (though this is my arbitrary POV).

Term	Google hits
John Brown	225000
John Locke	123000
Andrew Lloyd Webber	111000
George Herbert	77500
Helena Bonham Carter	64500
A. A. Milne	59300
Peter Ustinov	45900
Charles Wesley	45400
Henry Purcell	44500
John Gielgud	42100
William King	35500
Ben Jonson	34200
Christopher Wren	31400
Jeremy Bentham	28900
Peter Brook	25900
John Dryden	25000
Edward Gibbon	22800
Tony Benn	22500
Gavin Rossdale	18000
Robert Hooke	14000
Charles Pinckney	12900
Francis Lewis	12200
Adrian Boult	10200
Imogen Stubbs	9640
Roger Norrington	8340
Robert Southey	8120
Ruth Kelly	7720
Thomas Bruce	6580
Kim Philby	6220
Arthur Middleton	6180
John Burgoyne	6120
Warren Hastings	5680
Charles Dodgson	5600
John Nelson Darby	5540
Lord John Russell	4470
Thomas Gage	4340
Louis Theroux	4030
Benjamin Hall	3990
Angus Wilson	3910
Anthony Howard	3780
Nigel Lawson	3720
Norman Parkinson	3170
Richard Howe	2870
Henry Pelham	2680
Dido Armstrong	2350
Stephen Poliakoff	2280
Martha Lane Fox	1840
Michael Flanders	1560
Donald Swann	1550
Matt Frei	1420
Joe Cornish	1380
Andrew Huxley	1280
Charles Montagu	960
Charles Chauncy	937
George Jeffreys	936
Henry Paget	717
Sir James Graham	684
Henry Tizard	498
John Carteret	482
Thomas Pelham-Holles	464
Adam Buxton	407
Fitzroy Somerset	390
Charles Watson-Wentworth	385
William Henry Cavendish-Bentinck	368
William Knox D'Arcy	327
Dan Topolski	231
James Waldegrave	169
Gilbert Abbott a Beckett	136
George Henty	90
Oli Bennett	29

--Trainspotter 09:32, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

OK, that's in place now. I was half-tempted to remove George Herbert on grounds that a number of hits seemed to be to do with the modern horror writer, or the full name of President Bush senior, but on sampling some of the hits it still seemed that they were largely relevant ones so I left him in.

I don't claim that the list is the be-all-and-end-all. There may be other considerations determining what is interesting to people. For example, the name Oli Bennett -- despite the fact that he wasn't personally famous, and indeed his Google hit count is indeed the smallest on the above list, his name may be still be of general interest as it shows how the WTC tragedy thousands of miles away touched even this most British of institutions...

Nonetheless let's run with the Google count unless folk have better ideas.

--Trainspotter 10:03, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hmm; good work. :-) There also might be an issue with referencing Dido Armstrong as such, as she is normally referred to plainly as 'Dido'. I'd suggest, however, that Google-listings aren't 'objective' per se, merely a summary of subjective viewpoints...

Personally, I think we should keep in both Dido, and also Robert Hooke, as he was very important in the foundation of modern science and so on; however, I'm not going to edit my viewpoint back in as it might start an edit-war (though I would hope not ;-)).

Of course, given that the school has (non-House) parts of it or traditions named after Tizard, Middleton, Jonson, Gibbon, Hooke, Boult, and Purcell, perhaps we could use that as a guide (though, of couse, this again is STPPOV).

Thoughts?

James F. 11:14, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, 'objective' was bad choice of word. But something approaching definition of NPOV.

But by all means put back in some names that seem apt. You won't start an edit war (with me at least), because I fully recognise that the Google count has its flaws (not least because of difficulties choosing suitable search terms), and was just intended to be a starting point. The hit count for plain Dido (446,000) clearly justifies inclusion, and I tend to agree with Hooke (admittedly partly my own pro-scientist POV, but also e.g. 24,900 hits for "Hooke's law" | "Robert Hooke".)

--Trainspotter 11:44, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Lewis Carroll did not go to Westminster. Alice Liddell, the girl who inspired the 'Alice' books, was the daughter of a headmaster, and Carroll may have hung about the place, but he certainly didn't attend the school as a boy.

That would seem to be correct: http://lewiscarrollsociety.org.uk/pages/lewiscarroll/life.html . ed g2s • talk 15:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be a reselection of former pupils as it seems to be causing so much disagreement Lazmac 12:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Post-nominal letters?

Does anyone know if Westminster has a Royal Charter to grant post-nominal letters to former pupils? (I had heard that using 'OW' as PNLs for former pupils was correct, but not to a sufficent level of factualness for my liking.) A citation or somesuch would be great. -- jdforrester 08:50 Mar 2, 2003 (UTC)

Whether proper or not, OW is rarely used as a postnominal outside the school itself. I am one and have never used it. The same is true of the other major public schools. Jonathan 13:41, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

"QS" might be, though I've never used it since leaving. —Ashley Y 22:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

---

To-do list

This is more of an aide memoir rather than a prod to others:

• A description of the nature of the Shell and its significance in public schools (e.g. Harrow's use of the term 'The Shell' to describe their Vth Form, &c.)
• Note on the effect of the Blitz on the School (architecturally done, really; move to Surrey...?)
• Discipline (SAP/SEP as-was, detention; referals &c. in WUS)
• Newest purchases (3 & 3a of Dean's Yard, Millicent Fawcett Hall, etc.)

-- James F. 23:57, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

More:

• The Royal Pardon on murder charges from Charles I
• List of Headmasters? Hmm.

-- James F. 11:32, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yet more:

• Slang specific to the school
• Academic results, rankings, rivalries with Winch./St. Paul's...

-- James F. (talk) 15:20, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am planning to add

• School and Abbey (which should IMHO be a single section rather than spread across history and customs and other places)
• Links to Oxbridge (Trinity Cambridge and Christ Church)

--Jonathan 13:41, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

Good. The history section needs some cleanup - the coverage of the public schools act is woefully inadequate - Westminster might have gained final independence from the crown (and arguably it hasn't, given that the Chairman of the Board of Governers is a royal appointment) - but the real issue is independence of the Abbey.

--Giles Robertson [19:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)]

Indeed cough College Garden cough ... ;-)

James F. (talk) 19:08, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

College Garden, strictly refers to the College as in the Collegiate Body of the Abbey. Or so the canons say.

Giles Robertson 23:25 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The word "ancient"

I don't really know how to do this, but I thought I'd mention... you use the word ancient quite frequently. The OED defines ancient as follows: belonging to the very distant past and no longer in existance. In many cases this is clearly a misnomer.

[by 12.208.7.149 22:04 4 August 2005 (UTC)]

Jargon

Replaced "Brown" due to frequent current usage. Should "chirps" go in there too (ed & jdf, please comment, I'd prefer not to insert terms simply based on five years' experience) Grobertson 19:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

What should we put in here?

Gentlemen, although I have added many bits to this article, I have only just seen from your discussion that I am trespassing on a collective wisdom. I am new to Wiki and I apologise for any procedural impropriety.

I rather take it that you are of a recent generation of OWW, at the oldest. I am from Carleton's time, and I have been agonising whether I still owe a debt of discretion as an Old Wet, or whether I am free to add material that might not be attractive to a prospective parent living in Hicksville USA. For example, the public legal and parliamentary rows between the Abbey and the School reflect little credit on either party, and as John Field points out in Eliza they are still capable of raising hackles on such subjects as access to College Garden.

Of course many of the stories are published in copyright books such as Field's, but by definition a Wiki reader must be assumed not to have them. In-jokes and stories are not necessarily of interest to any particular reader, but dry architecture does no justice to our school. So what is your policy, pray?

JezzaBR 18:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello,

Interesting thoughts. It's a difficult one. The fact that the Westminster article is highlighted as a Showcase schools article by wikipedia with only about 20 others in the world, all of which have glossy and official-looking entries, tends to encourage a sense of the article being a competing advert for a grand institution. Westminster is a more interesting, unconventional and unusual place than the grand facade suggests, though, so perhaps it deserves a more interesting account.

Alex G. [ 18:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC) ]

I agree it sounds like a school prospectus and it should be amusing to the many old wets.

86.129.179.3 22:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article is perhaps a bit overly... positive and glossy, yes, but it's difficult to see what can be done without a criticism section being essentially a "criticism of the concept of independent schools or boarding schools" section, which would be completely inappropriate for this article. Something specifically critical, OTOH, would be very difficult to write within the confines of NOR and CITE, though, because, well, they'd be essentially based on personal observations ("Westminsters can often be overly 'cocky', over-confident to the point of arrogance", and so on), and would vary greatly between different generations and cliques, too.

James F. (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of slang used at the school or famous incidences, such as the TJP eta Donum, or when the whole remove was suspended or the last ever proper house singing competition. I am sure older pupils must have other good memories like that.

[ 86.29.76.145 16:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC) ]

Gosh, yes, the "TJP Eta Domum" scrawling, whilst saddenning, was most amusing. It was in the Telegraph and everything, IIRC ("how fantastic to see that Latin is still alive and well", yada yada yada).

Lord Oakeshott's daughter, as Head of School, leading the teaming masses in riots outside the school gates was fun, too.

Last ever "proper" House Singing depends on how you define "proper", of course, but I imagine you're referring to something after my time. :-)

OTOH, all of these events are somewhat (well, very) ephemeral - it would be very difficult for us to follow No Original Research in talking about such events, too (I suppose the press mentions might count, if someone feels like trying to dig through diary columns from a few years ago). I dunno. Perhaps a composite "recent noted events" section discussing such things?

James F. (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I think last "last proper house singing" refers to before it became "mass drunken karaoke" (a dignified Under School-type event), as opposed to the transistion from "mass drunken karaoke" to "slightly more controlled, slightly less drunken karaoke" - triggered in no small amount by a certain fellow Grantite vomiting on TJP in 2001. ed g2s • talk 03:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

No i meant that one

They would not be just recent, if older pupils also contributed the equivelent events from their time. Also I remember being taught in fifth form about how in the 18th or 19th century, the colledge scholars killed a bayliff or something, and had to get pardoned. I just feel the article doesnt do the school justice and makes it sound boring.

[ 129.234.4.76 15:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC) ]

17th century - the pardon was granted by Charles II. The pardon (a great big ~ A2-sized document with the seal of the king etc.) is in the school's archives somewhere. It's quite an impressive thing, really.

I agree that the article is a tad flat right now, yes. I'll hunt for a source for the murder bit.

James F. (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably should add something about saturday school, nut not sure where.

From 1967-1971 and around 1985, the pardon was just hanging behind glass on the wall in College library, not in the archives (and substantially bigger than A2). It begins "Carolus secundus Rex..." rather than the usual "Carolus alter Rex..." The bailiff was harassing one of the residents (who might have been a scholar's mistress), and the scholars ostensibly took exception to the breach of the ancient right of sanctuary, although that had legally been abolished. I think Dr Busby put the cost of the pardon on the bill!

During the demos outside Parliament in the Winter of Discontent, I remember a policemen being sent round to stop QSS singing Gilbert & Sullivan "Bow, bow, ye lower middle classes..." safely behind the locked railings of St Margaret's.

It cannot be "research", original or otherwise, if you are a direct witness to a unique occurence.

Jezzabr 08:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

If someone could please mention the on site shooting range under Station....

Probably not a great idea for security - and the last thing they want is jumpy politicians in Parliament finding out about it and having it closed down. ed g2s • talk 03:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted the public school programme bit as it seems a very minor event in the schools history and is on every public schools site.

I dont see why the jargon has to be unique to the school, I think it should just reflect things that are used regularly and are unusual.

With the Bayliff story either the King or the date is wrong as 1789 isnt in his Reign

Ah, whoops, yes. 1679. Typo on my part.

BTW, if you end your posts with "~~~~" it will sign them so it can be more easily seen as to who said what.

James F. (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Just thought of Something that should be added to the Jargon: the term names, but I am not sure I remembered them right, Is it Play, Lent then Election. Lazmac 11:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Added... ConDem^Talk 14:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've put in their origins as I was told them: "play" from latin play, "election" from election of scholars (lent obvious). ed g2s • talk 20:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

1. "Gosh, yes, the "TJP Eta Domum" scrawling, whilst saddenning, was most amusing."
2. "I think last "last proper house singing" refers to before it became "mass drunken karaoke" (a dignified Under School-type event), as opposed to the transistion from "mass drunken karaoke" to "slightly more controlled, slightly less drunken karaoke" - triggered in no small amount by a certain fellow Grantite vomiting on TJP in 2001."

(1) It was "TJP ito domum (2) --, who puked on TJP?! Ryan4 04:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

No, another Grantite, HA, but best no need to be named in a public forum eh? ed g2s • talk 21:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Boat Club

I've suggested that Westminster School Boat Club be merged into the sports section here. Any thoughts? Metros232 22:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support merge. No point in it having its own page. ConDem^Talk 22:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Under School

In History it says that only the distinction between upper and under school is new, as Gibbon went there at Eleven. It seems more likely to me that he went to the school at 11 for the same reason he went to uni at 14, ie he was really clever. How usual was it for younger pupils to attend prior to the creation of the under school. Lazmac 16:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

it says "The school traditionally fosters independent and individual thinking." .... this is a ludicrous baseless assertion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.53.38.170 (talk • contribs) .

Tree

This section is not not notable as it is one of the main reasons the school has been in the news the last few years. It should not have been removed simply because someone wished to preserve the anonymity of the Tree's creator...--193.118.203.3 13:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, there was already an Afd on Westminster Tree. ed g2s • talk 18:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

For shame! Just because there is an Afd for it's own article surely that doesn't mean it can't garner a mention on the Westminster wiki?!--193.118.203.3 13:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Praebendum

As listed in "Jargon", is this a new thing or a deprecated term? ed g2s • talk 19:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It's new. The correct plural is not Praebenda but Praebendums however, so that should be corrected on the page. I'd do it myself, but editing the page is blocked from within the school network (by the school, not Wikipedia). DonGoat 16:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible Image available

It's an CC-Attribution image, available at flickr here. I ran across it, so use it if its appropriate. Cheers! Royalbroil 04:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That's the Sanctuary and the entrance to Dean's Yard. None of those buildings are school buildings AFAIK. ed g2s • talk 17:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hackluyt

There is no mention of the founder of the house of Hackluyt's?? Since he has a house named after him surely he should me mentioned!

[by 172.159.133.225 19:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Added.

James F. (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"No jews allowed scholarships"

Is it actually true that scholarships are only given to people with Christian families? (diff) I can't believe it is. But it's just about possible I suppose. ConDem^Talk 02:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Dr Katz said that he had that changed, although reasonably recently. I could be wrong though.

Lazmac 07:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've reverted it for now. Perhaps if anyone can come up with a citation, it should go in. ConDem^Talk 17:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

that was dumped about 40 years ago now..

Yuyu6 —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Article Grading

I have changed the article grading to B-Class, for the following reasons:

• 3 References - most of the GA's have upwards of 30. In order to get this article somewhere it needs significant referencing, maybe some of the books in the further reading section would be helpful.
• The infobox and the category on establishment are contradictory: infobox says: "11th century or before" and cat says: "educational institutions established in the 12th century".

Some other touches that i feel would improve the article:

• changing "notable buildings" to a "campus" section as per WP:SCH guide to layout
• If this "campus" section is made, merge the "location" section into the "campus" section.
• Merge "jargon" section into the "customs" section
• Add some images of the early years into the history section.
• Remove some of the lower-quality images, such as the interhouse shirt, and the pancake one.

I will make some more suggestions later, feel free to query me on anything i have said here, SMBarnZy 10:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Results claim

As far as I know the school's A level results didn't top the table in 2006, although they do every few years, constantly alternating with st paul's /winchester etc- could someone take out this year from the three mentioned as the others had refs as I remember, and I don't think that one is right.

Jkkj8998 12:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

here we are - winchester was top last year ( and 2002/ +1999 ?), while I think westminster was top in 2001, 2004 and 2005, and st pauls somewhere in there too ( poss. 2000 & 2003 ? ).

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1858736,00.html

Jkkj8998 12:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Original assessment

This article doesn't have enough references to be a B article. It also needs work on WP:NPOV and significant trimming (Particularly the customs and jargon sections.) Adam McCormick 01:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

'Stoned to death'

The section on the Greaze says that a chef failing to get a pancake over the Greaze bar would be stoned to death with Latin primers; surely this is something of an exaggeration! Do we have any source for this? Anything at all to suggest that books would have been thrown at all or is it all hearsay? DonGoat (talk) 14:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead summary

I can't say that I particularly like the look of the new boxed lead summary to this article. I don’t know how others feel about it? Flaming Ferrari (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I for one think it's excellent. :) The idea of an introduction is to explain exactly what the article is about; this makes this much easier, by raising the visibility of the introduction section. Granted, others may feel differently; however, for my part it works very well with this article. Anthøny 15:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Why the need for the box though? It's horrible and distracting. Surely WP:LEAD tells us "The lead section, lead, or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the first heading. The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic" i.e. to summarize the article in the lead anyway, so why bother doing anything fancy? Deamon138 (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's very painful on the eyes, and completely unneeded. The visibility of the introduction is raised by, uhm, it being the first thing a reader see's. Ironholds 18:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol good point! Anyway, any objections to a removal of the box? Deamon138 (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Not from me. I would appreciate it if this was a book, and articles flowed continuously across pages, but since this is not the case, and the introduction is the first thing those not inclined to trawl through the body of the article for it will see, it's as redundant as it is ugly. WilliamH (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I went ahead and removed it. Let's see if it people are okay with this. Deamon138 (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Contents of the lead section

As part of my tidying and new formatting of the lead section (above), I removed the line:

The school traditionally encourages independent and individual thinking.

... due to policy - we can't just have bare statements of dubious "fact" like this without citing some sources. Tyu67 (talk · contribs) recently reverted me in this matter, so I seek further input. Thoughts?

James F. (talk) 08:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is rather clear on the matter: whether or not we think a particular fact is true, our readers must be able to (through our provision of reliable sources) double-check that our facts are correct. (See also, wikipedia:Verifiability.)

I don't agree with Tyu67's revert here. Anthøny 10:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Buggery

Let me get this straight, in 1554 apparently someone thought it was a wise idea to appoint Nicholas Udall, a convicted bugger, as headmaster of Westminster!?! What were they thinking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.187.20 (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about a boys public school. Isn't buggery a requirement?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.8.155 (talk) 09:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing Data

The table of the houses doesn't state when Wren's was founded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.14.94 (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Re-assessment

The article is does not fit in either Start or B class. The article's text is well written, but work on WP:NPOV is needed, and references are cruicial. If this article has enough solid referneces and the NPOV issue is addressed, a GA class is close.Tmwerty (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Former pupils section

It seems that the "Former Pupils" section on the main page is considerably imbalanced with a heavy bias toward the modern day - to the detriment of the strength of the list. It is well worth remembering that there is already a large list at List of former pupils of Westminster School, so there is little reason in including so many recent, semi-obscure alumni. Perhaps it's just me, but it seems highly incongruous to have, say, Louis Theroux - some wacky documentary maker with a weird show on BBC Two - on the same list as people like Wesley, Bentham, Milne and Ustinov. Cyril Washbrook (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)