Talk:Winston Churchill Memorial Trusts

Untitled

Shouldn't it be "Applicants must be 18 years of age or over"? I've not got time to check it up right now (researching for work).Metasyntactic D (talk) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Added refs

I added refs from the Alan Bath book and removed the coi and cleanup templatess Woz2 (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Expand notable fellows section

TODO: summarize http://www.wcmt.org.uk/fellowships/fellows-today.html and do a Google search for more Fellows Woz2 (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just cleaned up this section as per the direction to only list people with articles on Wikipedia (or be prepared to create one!). There are just too many to include all of the many worthy people who earn these fellowships each year, to list them all here. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Woz2: & @Laterthanyouthink:. I would be grateful to know where the "direction to only list people with articles on Wikipedia (or be prepared to create one!)" comes from. It seems wholly irrational to me. Should we apply that to all lists of awards? Are we running out of paper? Jacksoncowes (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jacksoncowes. See the editors' note at the top of the section, WP:LISTBIO and related links, and WP:NOT. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Laterthanyouthink for your prompt reply. Please accept my seasonal greetings and my critical remarks below in the good spirit that I send them.

I had seen the flag at the top of the section and the hidden directive note preceding it. Although it directs to the talk page for criteria I can find nothing to support that on the talk page. I have never seen the 'Expand section template' altered as this one is and I wonder if it is unique. What I was asking was - where does the direction come from? I now know that Vanished user ty12kl89jq10, who had added the simple expansion flag on 10 May 2009, added the direction some 2 years later (17 July 1012). It looks to me that the direction was perhaps an attempt to encourage discussion on the talk page of the criteria for inclusion in the list, as per WP:SOURCELIST. If so it failed. There has been no talk page discussion. Why would there be? It dictated one single criterion.

The section is headed Notable fellows by country and year. In my respectful opinion, the heading is sufficient; the directive is quite wrong. It is a dictate which breaches a range of Wiki Policies. WP:SOURCELIST deals with the matter clearly. It must be reasonable to say that there are many notable people who do not have a Wikipedia article and vice versa. The notion that the existence of a wiki article is a mark, let alone the only mark, of acceptability for addition to this in-article list, is quite wrong and rather worrying. The remark you made on the talk page, "(or be prepared to create one!)", shows commendable prescience on your part; look at some of the remarks and flags on some of the existing wikki/Churchill Fellow's pages. I can fully appreciate that 2+ years ago it may have seemed appropriate to be guided by the supposedly authoritative directive but, with respect and with hindsight, I say it was not. Let individual editors decide whether or not to add a Churchill Fellow to the lists and individual editors to accept or challenge in the usual way. Jacksoncowes (talk) 15:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Jacksoncowes, I don't have a lot to do with list articles usually (although coincidentally two others have just been brought to my attention lately). However across all of the articles I have edited, the "notable people" heading usually only includes people who pass the WP:NOTABILITY criteria, and this section does include the word "notable" in the heading... However, I'm not particularly invested in the article, so don't really mind one way or another - I tend to look at the whole article from the users' readability point of view, and think what they may be looking for when they find their way to the article. Another option to consider, if the list gets very long, is to create a separate list article. And Happy New Year to you! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Image of Churchill taken by Yousuf Karsh as logo

Recently, editor @Bamkin: changed the image located on this page to a higher quality version of the same image (see change). I removed this image entirely (see change) for a couple of reasons. First, the non-free content policy requires us to have a separate, specific non-free rationale for each use of a non-free image. The image was lacking this rationale. Secondly, there is a claim that this image is used as the logo of the organization, which I believe is incorrect. I looked at the sites of the linked organizations in the UK, Australia and New Zealand. The image does not appear on any of those websites, and certainly not as a logo. I did find a similar image on the UK site ([1]) but the expression on his face in this image is not the same, and it is a different image. Regardless, the image is not used as a "logo". I think where confusion has happened is that The Winston Churchill Foundation of the United States (website) does use a derivative of this image, apparently as a logo. But, this foundation is not part of nor apparently affiliated with the trust. As a result, I do not believe either version of this image is appropriate for this article. I have therefore orphaned the non-free image File:Churchill-trust-logo.jpg and tagged it as such. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)