Talk:The Doon School/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about The Doon School. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Image in infobox

A new user and likely single purpose account, TheJoneald (talk · contribs), has been busy replacing the Doon School logo in the infobox, which admittedly is a bit hazy, with a picture of the school. He has been told that the logo is there as a result of previous consensus (see this discussion. He has responded by edit warring and claiming in his edit summary, "I don't see any darn consensus for this shoddy image placement." A consensus on Wikipedia is a consensus achieved by the participants in a discussion. The participants don't have to comprise all the editors of Wikipedia. In the discussion mentioned above, the participants included two major contributors to the Doon School page, as well as the administrator who is overseeing the page, CT Cooper. As Cooper states in the discussion, it is common practice to have the school logo in the infobox. This practice is in evidence, for example, on the following school pages: Eton College, Rugby School, Winchester College, Harrow School, Gordonstoun, Chatham House Grammar School, Phillips Andover Academy, Phillips Exeter Academy, Boston Latin School, New Trier High School, Oak Park and River Forest High School, The Bronx High School of Science, Brooklyn Technical High School. As any school in this list is better known than Doon and as all have observed the common practice, why should the Doon page be given a special dispensation? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 10:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on this point. Justice007 (talk) 11:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

[User:Fowler] What an absolute baloney! It's not about giving special dispensation to this school (which it doesn't deserve in the first place), but using an infobox image that is more suitable. In this case, this hazy logo is squalid, repellent, barbaric and rotten. And whoever you're quoting in "logo is common practice in infobox" is not saying that it's the only practice. Nor have I read anywhere that any other picture is not allowed in Infobox. Take a quick look at the following Good & Featured Articles:-

All of the above are using images other than school logos because like Doon their logo images are not of good quality or are unavailable. So stop showing me your dratted lists;I can produce the same. Also, you don't even appear in the consensus and those who do don't appear to be having much problem with this. Also, try using your grey matter sometimes! You don't have to ape what other schools have done on Wiki. In fact, many schools (quoted above) have used their building images in Infobox! Also, how the heck do you know in 6 days' time that mine is a Single purpose account?? --TheJoneald (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You find a hazy logo squalid, repellent, barbaric, and rotten. Well, there a succinct solution to your verbal overkill. The logo is hazy because its size has been bumped up by someone. All one needs to do is to reduce it to the original size which I have now done. All but one your other remarks have been rendered ineffectual as a result. As for the one that hasn't, I said, "likely single purpose account." I obviously don't know, but in an article that is plagued by SPAs, it is a reasonable concern. Also, you started editing in March 2012. You might not have contributed much between March and July, but you have done nothing except contribute to Doon School articles. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, it would be appreciated if this discussion could be toned down a notch or two - yes the picture in the infobox is worthy of discussion, but there are more important things. I have taken note that the level of edit warring in this article has gone beyond what is acceptable - no consensus is not grounds for edit warring; I would suggest following the WP:BRD cycle. Yes, as mentioned above, it is generally the default practice for the school infobox to have the school's logo, but this is a flexible rule, and exceptions can be made if it is inappropriate. CT Cooper · talk 14:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Fowler, please spare us your obtuse observation about logo being "bumped up". That's the whole point of this very discussion. No good size of the logo exists and, hence, the building shot should be used (exceptions should be made) - also, it's not really an exception when you see dozens of Featured and Good articles with building images in their infoboxes! I don't see any problem here. Also, adding to my argument, the building image is quite symmetrical which is altogether more suitable for an Infobox!! So, lay down arms and STOP this Edit war!! --TheJoneald (talk) 19:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to go off at a tangent, why does no decent image of the school logo exist? Doesn't the school have somesuch on their website? Aren't there Wikipedia editors with connections with the school (e.g. being a pupil or former pupil) who could ask for a copy of the original? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi! To answer your question, there is no one actual logo of the school. The so-called "Lamp of Knowledge" is used in umpteen places in various guises, in various colours. So what Fowler is trying to put in the Infobox is not the "official" logo that Eton College or Harrow School have. It's anyway their Coat of Arms, which Doon doesn't have. In fact, this might come as a surprise, Doon does not have any official seal, coat of arms, or specially crafted "official logo". Wikipedia is perhaps the only place where that black-and-white "logo" appears. Also, it's just "The Doon School" and the "lamp" image put together, quite sloppily. In that light, I'd personally give my vote to the 'building shot' in the Infobox. Because really, that small disfigured image is not the official logo of the school. Or else why wouldn't the school website show it/display it in, at least, one place? Also, I've never seen anyone use it in school. The lamp is the only thing that gets around in different guises (be it on our blazers, or notebooks). So, I give my vote to the building image in infobox. Ah, but let the bigwigs decide! --DoscoinDoon ^DoscoinDoon 19:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed reply, that's great, and very illuminating on the present dispute. I'll wait until the edit warring calms enough for me to see which logo and check where it comes from - which is a quite interesting question, if it's not anywhere on the school website. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The lamp is the logo. It is the first thing one sees on the school website. It is on the school blazer, and has been at least since 1950. It appears on the school gate a minute into this video on the school website. In other words, it passes the Duck test. I could easily grab it off the video. It is not a bad looking frame, but with so many SPAs working on this article, why don't they do some real work instead of shouting at me in edit summaries while they blithely double up in schoolboy histrionics. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

PS Interestingly, the Memberships section of the article has carried a picture of the logo for quite some time. Apparently no one has had a problem with that. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

When did I shout at you? Anyway, the 'lamp' is the logo but what went earlier in the Infobox is not the logo of the school. It's just a rectangle with the text "The Doon School" and the image of the lamp inside it. What I would call the perfect logo of the school available on the Internet right now is probably this image. But, again, it's too small! DoscoinDoon ^DoscoinDoon 09:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, 100x150 pixel JPEG. They shouldn't be using a JPEG for what is effectively a two-colour line drawing anyway, that makes it even poorer quality. Could someone ask the school for a copy of the original image? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Review

If anyone's around, can you point out which sections need to be worked on? Or, in fact, any other relevant suggestions? Merlaysamuel : Speechify 10:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I watched sometimes, but did not go through,haven't time, may be someone take a look at- I hope. Nolelover is not any more active, busy in real life. He was very good editor.Justice007 (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed he is...anyway, will ask someone else, no issues! Merlaysamuel : Speechify 12:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Good article nomination

This is to inform everyone associated that I'm finally filing a Good Article nomination. We can address the issues as soon as they are pointed out in the review. Merlaysamuel : Speechify 15:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Doon School/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mrt3366 (talk · contribs) 16:07, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Section named "Faculty" doesn't have a source, why? Primary sources are used at multiple places, that's not a bad thing per se as it is not apparently written in a self-serving manner.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Like I said the only thing is the "faculty" section has no sources currently.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	With some minor changes down the line, it seems, it will be a good article.

Mr T ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 16:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)