Talk:Dulwich College/Archive 1

Archive 1

12 scholars

User:148.235.242.21 removed the introductory phrase about the 12 original scholars, but I don't understand why, so I reverted that. Leave a note here if you have a reason for it to be omitted. David Brooks 15:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Some weirdos go around inserting, removing or changing random words or short phrases. I assume thir intention is to cause subtle vandalism that won't be noticed. When you see that an IP address (rather than a registered user) has made an unusual change it can be a good idea to click on it and see what other changes they've been making around the Wiki. I reverted the same deletion by a 212.85.x.x IP, and I believe this to be a class of school kids who listen to the Iain Lee radio show. They vandalise his entry and then follow the wiki link to fellow presenter Clive Bull, from where they get here. The 148.235.242.21 user was probably the same kid at a different location.

(above comment was by user 81.178.99.103) OK, but I expanded the history section instead to include the information on the 12. I suppose in this case it doesn't matter that the information is duplicated; it's reasonable to have it in the intro paragraph also. David Brooks 15:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Alumni

Why is jimmy carr listed, though his bio doesnt mention dulwich college? Why is G E Moore not mentioned? Also, Dulwich has severed its ties with the school in Phuket. In other words...this page needs an update

(above comment by User:217.42.1.113) - 1) Is Carr "notable", and can his attendance be independently verified? It doesn't need to be in his official bio. 2) This is a wiki. Don't just sit on the edge of the pool. Dive in and update! David Brooks 04:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

86.132.62.77 reversion

I don't understand why 86.132.62.77 reverted to essentially the version by 82.26.42.172 of 06:16, 31 December 2005 (but with the removal of Jimmy Carr and Dr Niven). Perhaps he would care to explain on this page. I think Pperos's changes were all good (and corrected at least one error I made). Since this entry is not exclusively aimed at Americans, there is no need to elaborate on the meaning of Public School beyond the wikilink.

As to Dr Niven, it is true that he taught Tony Blair at Fettes, was head at Alleyns and founding head of DC Shanghai, and once presented an award to Miss World (apparently as neither a judge nor a host). If you feel strongly about him, put him back. David Brooks 20:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

society for the preservation of the semi-colon

Thanks very much David Brooks, I must really learn to stop abusing our language. You're not an English teacher from the College in disguise by any chance? :P BFS

LOL - no, just a follower of Lynne Truss :-) David Brooks 16:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Is there something that could be done to stop the constant vandalism of this page? I assume its kids from the school. Bensonby 18:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Victoria Crosses

It is my belief that OAs have won more VCs than any other public school (at least in the 2nd war I think) - if this is indeed so then it certainly deserves a mention. Hpwever, I cant find any such statistics to back this up, can anyone help on this? is it true? BFS

I have been looking at VCs and although Dulwich College does have a large number of VC recipients (at seven) this pales in comparison with Eton's 37. I am working on a comparison and have verified a number of schools. Dulwich is in the top 10. As far as WW2 is concerned, Dulwich won 2 VCs and Marlborough, Wellington and Eton all better that. Kwib 23:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Lionel Barber

According to a report by the Sutton Trust ([1]) he went to Dulwich College

True, of course. Sdbarber 22:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Failing GA Nomination

I have failed the Good Article nomination for Dulwich College. Sorry guys, but it's just nowhere near the right standard.

The two largest concerns are that the article is not broad enough in scope (doesn't deal with all or almost all the scope of the subject - in this case, there's nothing talking about its academic achievements, or much of the tradition at the school, houses, library, etc), and it has no references. Without citing references, there is no verifiability to any of the information in the article, and that is absolutely something that is required.

This is a good start, but a fair bit of work will be required to get it to GA standard. It needs to be longer, more comprehensive, and well-referenced. Another photo or two wouldn't hurt either (and on that note, the next time I'm passing the school, I'll see if I can get some, if I do I'll let you know here).

Sorry I can't be the bearer of better news, but its good work so far, thanks to all editors for their contributions. — Estarriol ^talk 11:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've renominated this article as it looke like a lot of work has gone into it Bensonby (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Mastership Dates

Ronald Groves retired in 1966, not 1962, as his own article records.Hymers2 (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is correct. The change of Groves retirement to 1962 appears to have been manipulated to include a bogus name for a non-existent Master for 4 years. The reference that was cited for the bogus Master was simply copied from that used for other correct entries. This has now been remedied.Kwib (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dulwich College/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Unfortunately, this article requires a substantial amount of work before it meets the Good Article criteria. Several issues are:

• The lead needs more work. The first paragraph of the lead, for instance, is only a single sentence; either merge the paragraphs so there are two paragraphs in the lead, or expand them further.
• Remove bold formatting from the article's body (reserve it only for the lead to identify the article's subject.)
• Several sections including "School Uniform", "School Slang", and "Recent developments" are completely unreferenced.

Gary King (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the above GA "Review"

If I had been an active editor on the Dulwich College article, I think I would find the above GA review rather perfunctory and dismissive. The article is not yet up to GA standard, and the criticisms raised are valid enough, but the article deserved a more thoughtful critique than it seems to have got. Are these three points the reviewer's sole concerns, or are there others he has not mentioned? If there is more, the editors are entitled to know, so that they can make a comprehensive effort to improve the article. Unfortunately, I don't see here from the reviewer any indication of engagement with the editors, or of a readiness to help, or indeed of any sense of interest in the article at all. There is no reference to the six GA criteria - how did the article fare against each of these? All in all, this is in my view a good example of how not to carry out GA reviews.

If the editors would like some constructive ideas as to how the article might be improved, over and above the points indicated, I'd be pleased to help - just leave a message on my talk page. I have no connection with the college, but I would very much like to see this as the first UK school article to make it to GA. Best wishes, Brianboulton (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the Good Article process is not to critique articles; rather, it is to assess articles that are at or almost at Good Article standards. Per the quoted text at WP:GAN, "If you believe an article meets the good article criteria", then you should submit it for nomination. This article is clearly not even close to the standards. If the article's editors wish some light to be shed on what can be done to improve it, then getting a Peer Review at WP:PR is the way to go. Gary King (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest that, instead of blaming the nominators for presenting a flawed product, you consult WP:Reviewing good articles, which states: "The Good Article process is one of the main systems which provides a critical review of the article" (emphasis added). It also says "When reviewing an article, keep in mind that nominators want guidance (emphasis added) on improving an article which is not yet up to standard, and appreciate specific comments on how to bring the article up to standard". Also: "Reviewing is a serious responsibility, and the most dedicated reviewers spend considerable time on each article". Your personal view that the purpose of the process is merely to assess articles that are at or nearly at the required standard is obviously contrary to these guidelines. Any article that is not within the quick fail criteria (and this article isn't) deserves more time, consideration and respect than you gave it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not blame editors, ever. I point out flaws in articles, period. People should take a look at WP:GNGA before nominating an article; even though it is not a guideline, it is prominently linked to from WP:GAN. Also, I have given actionable suggestions on this page for the article's editors to work on; once they have been done, they are always free to respond back on this page. I always watch Good Article reviews that I give out, and am willing to follow up on them at all times. Gary King (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear it, and it might help if you gave that impression when wording your review comments. But perhaps, having had WP:Reviewing good articles brought to your attention, you will review in that spirit, in future. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason I nominated this article was because all of the probllems highlighted in teh first GA review seemed to have been addressed. (Lack of scope, lack of references &c.) Indeed, your 3 points can be easily addressed with a little amount of work. So I would dispute the assertion that: "This article is clearly not even close to the standards." I will, however, have a look at the criteria and do some editing as and when ?I have the time. Bensonby (talk) 11:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That is fair enough; you are free to disagree with my assessment. Every reviewer has their own opinion, and my own can certainly be disputed. Gary King (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "GPS 94" :
  • Webster F.A.M., (1937), ''Our Great Public Schools'', page 92, (Butler & Tanner: London)
  • In 1982 two more Houses (Jonson and Howard) were added due to an increased College roll.<ref name="GPS 94" /> The table below displays all the houses and their respective colours:<ref>[http://www.dulwich.org.uk/Document_1.aspx?id=1:29061&id=1:29051/ Dulwich College site, Day House System]

DumZiBoT (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Academic Achievement

As an old boy I wish I did not have to write this, but this section is not objective and clearly contains a strong element of special pleading. Why, for example, say that if the top 120 of 200 6th form pupils are taken, their achievement ranks among the top ten in the country? Other schools such as Eton, with 240 boys in the sixth form, gets three times as many pupils into Oxbridge (and a considerable number into Ivy League colleges, and St Pauls, have continued to get around 1/3rd of their sixth form into Oxbridge, as Dulwich used to in its heyday in the 1970s. And the notion that numbers are diluted by competition from other UK universities is hightly questionable. Moreover, to cite Tatler in claiming that its academic results are 'remarkable' really is scraping the barrel. This is not to say Dulwich's academic achievements are not excellent; it's just that they are, objectively, not top rank any more as a result of a deliberate decision by the school some 15 years ago not to compete with its former London rivals, Westminster and St Pauls. In short, while the rest of the entry is directly factual, the paragraph on academic achievement is little more than 'spin' from an insider with rose-tinted spectacles. Sdbarber 21:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

my sister is looking at schools in SE London for her children. One of the stated positions is that Dulwich wont 'suggest' pupils leave if their exam grades arent going to be good enough, unlike other schools in the area. They are prepared to see their League table position slide but remain committed to their pupils. A position that should be publicised and commended —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.158.143 (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Direct Grant Status

I think I'm right in saying that from after World War Two until the late 1960's, Dulwich was a Direct Grant school, and thus took a large number of pupils who were funded by local education authorities. In effect that meant creaming off the best state school pupils, and this helped raise Dulwich to a position of academic pre-eminence. Certainly in the sixties it rivalled Winchester, Westminster, St Paul's and Manchester Grammar School. Should this not be in the article? (I was not at Dulwich, but have close family connections) Millbanks (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The "Dulwich Experiment". It would be a good addition.Kwib (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Irregular Uniform

I am not sure if this is urban legend, but I believe that for some reason the Captain of Croquet at the school has the right to wear a different blazer, being navy and red with irregular stripes. I am not sure if there is any literary evidence for this. I do know that the Captains of the senior Boarding Houses (Blew and Ivyholme) did have unique blazers that they were allowed to wear should they also be holders of Full Colours.Kwib (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This will require some further insight. From what I have seen, the Captain of Croquet only wears their blazer whilst playing croquet for games. The heads of the senior Boarding houses may wear their respective blazers on Founder's Day. If you would like to further discuss this matter, please let me know. The Z ^UKBG (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Uniform

Seeing as the uniform section needs referencing and (I believe) improvement, I (or another editor) may go ahead and edit that section, including stating that often boys (especially in the upper school), for example, wear scarves other than those of school colours, wear boaters (permitted), or may be permitted to wear CCF or sports kit during the day.

Information as to the school's current policy can be found here (section College Uniform).

Rgds The Z ^UKBG (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Old Wykehamists, Old Alleynians, etc. to become "Alumni of... "?

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 10#Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom. Moonraker2 (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

DC in media

Since students were banned from editing, I can't add this myself - Dulwich was recently shown on BBC4 repeatedly during the documentary "What makes us clever?" by Horizon - the great hall, art block, science lab J and outside of the main building were all featured —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.89.70 (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What about Dulwich College branches in Asia?

Why is there no mention?

SOUTH KOREA Seoul: http://www.dulwich-seoul.kr/

CHINA Beijing: http://www.dulwich-beijing.cn/ Shanghai: http://www.dulwich-shanghai.cn/ Suzhou: http://www.dulwich-suzhou.cn/

SINGAPORE Singapore: http://www.dulwich-singapore.sg/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.78.161.16 (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Rival Schools

Is this area of the infobox necessary. What is its justification and how can it be verified?Kwib (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I would also say that some of these schools might be surprised to learn that Dulwich College is their rival. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.197.124 (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

List of Headmasters

Is there an exceptional reason why the surnames of the Masters are in capitals? I was about to change them all to the normal spelling (including full-stops after the initials) but thought I should find out first if there is, for example, a tradition in the college that they are shown in this way. If it is traditional then it seems an explanation should preface the list, because it is exceptional, in order to deter any who were thinking of changing it. I have not seen lists of names shown this way in Wikipedia.P0mbal (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if there were such a tradition – and I doubt that there is – this is a Wikipedia article not a school article and should therefore, I believe, conform to the normal Wikipedia practice. As you say, this would be in lower case with initial caps and a full stop after any initials. I suggest you go right ahead. Incidentally, the Deputy Master who took over in 1953 was C. Thomas. Peter Farey (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)