Talk:Queen Elizabeth's Hospital

Untitled

None of the images have source info. Some look as though they may be taken from the school's website (the one of the Headmaster certainly has). I've asked the uploader (User:Jasonaforbes) to provide source info and tagged the images. Kev ^(talk) 02:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Assessment as of March 2007

Hello all, and thank you for contributing to this school site. I'm part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Assessment team, and I'm reviewing this page. I'm currently giving it a grade of Start on the Wikipedia 1.0 Assessment Scale and an importance of High on this importance scale.

My reasoning is as follows: Over 400 years old with royal patronage. Needs to reference its sources and additional information. Adam McCormick 04:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Alumni

KevM asks for a reference for Andrew Ibrahim, will this do: http://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=147472&command=displayContent&sourceNode=243687&home=yes&more_nodeId1=242222&contentPK=20444787 ? (I am not the person who added him in previously, I just googled for "Andrew Ibrahim qeh") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.34.174 (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would do. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Old Elizabethans

Dino Zamparelli has not left the school and so does not qualify. Also, Junior Ginetta isn't that noteworthy. I have no doubt Dino will be worth a mention someday, but not yet.

I would like to suggest Adrian Jones (1973-1980) as a notable old Elizabethan as he has been awarded an M.B.E. for his work in New York after 9/11 to ensure that the Mayor could fulfill his promise of speeding up the process of identifying people killed in the terrorist attack. He built the system that enabled this to happen. Neilljones (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

On more reflection - this section seems to me to be fundamentally flawed in that there doesn't seem to be a good set of criteria for who is included here and who is not. Clearly famous people in the media is one obvious criterion for being notable (although a populist and potentially short-lived one), as is inventing something that has changed our lives in some way (as Friese-Greene did)

However I find it hard to see why Martin Bright and Mike Smith are included for basically doing their jobs while others are excluded. There must be plenty of other Old Elizabethans who have reached the pinnacle of their respective chosen careers who are not mentioned here and it is the arbitrariness of those listed (rather than a question of should we list people in business/media etc) that I think is the problem especially given that Wikipedia is about objective/encyclopedic information.

For example, I believe that Paul Hodges who was also in the same year as Mike, Martin and myself is now a successful businessman with a multi-million pound business that he built up by hand - this is to my mind a much harder and more notable achievement than working in a national newspaper when you are a trained journalist (no offence Martin). How many Old Elizabethan's have gone to become Professors and world experts in their chosen subjects that are not mentioned (in percentage terms - 100%)?

I suggest that either a definitive set of criteria are created by which people can judge whether or not someone should be added, or preferably, that this section is divided in to suitable sections to reflect different meanings of notable and even in these cases, notable should be well-defined and more so than just reached the top of their career. They have to have gone above and beyond in some sense. Otherwise the list will be too long. And to arbitrarily curtail it is too subjective.

Media is one example, and this would cover about half the list. Becoming a Hollywood film star is certainly notable. Playing for Bath rugby - sorry not really - playing for England certainly. Being awarded by the state for something you've done (which is why I mentioned Adrian above for his MBE awarded by the Queen) - well if the state thinks it noteworthy then that sounds a good criterion to me. Perhaps Martin has been awarded for his journalism - I don't know - but if he has that should be the criterion and that should be mentioned. It can't be simply that he is a journalist. The same with Mike Smith - the criterion should be that he has fundamentally influenced British music (which I believe he has) rather than being a Managing Director. The list should state clearly what the person has done above and beyond the normal for that section which is the notable bit.

If we can't do that, then I think this list is too arbitrary and subjective to be worthy of Wikipedia's normal objective/encyclopedic requirements and should therefore be dropped altogether. Neilljones (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that a reasonable baseline is to use "does this person have an en.wp article?" If so, they qualify as notable by WP:N. Beyond that I realy have no input. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:35, 9 February 2010 (UT

if by that you mean do they have a wikipedia page - I would have thought that is a reasonable criteria but perhaps insufficient - it is easy to add your own page isn't it??? Many articles about people may be because they are in the media. Is that too restricted a definition of notable and also too skewed to our modern obsession with z-list celebrities? Neilljones (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's easy to add your own page, but if you don't show that you are notable it will be swiftly deleted. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two important rules to follow when you're working on a list such as this. Firstly, have a read of WP:BIO, and if you think the person in question fulfills the requirements set out there then they can probably be added. Secondly there should be a reliable third-party source stating that they are an Old Elizabethan, just knowing that they are isn't good enough. When adding someone you should ideally add a reference stating the source that verifies they are an Old Elizabethan. See WP:V for more information about verifiability. — Gasheadsteve ^{Talk to me} 13:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Excessive detail

Hi. Do we really really need the degree of detail which this article currently presents? For example "The school also has an up-to-date ICT suite which allows boys access to the internet. Boys can log onto the school server through a link on the school website." is hardly unique, interesting or particularly encyclopaedic. I know there's a tendency in many schools articles to stick absolutely everything possible in, and I honestly do sympathize with the feeling that you don't want to omit anything important but really, quite a lot of this stuff - oh, and the library has fiction and non-fiction, apparently - is just too much. Having not worked on this article before I am not in a hurry to be WP:BOLD and start hacking at it but I would like to know what other editors think. Now, Herr JDP, the Harry Sliders if you please. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 09:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd strip that back to "the school has modern IT facilities and an extensive library." -mattbuck (Talk) 12:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I know this is from over a decade ago, but I think it's worth pointing out that that particular example also isn't true any more, as the system allowing remote login has been discontinued as of a couple of years ago. The section of the article has (obviously) changed in a decade, but that particular statement is still up there and it's bugging me. Jhynjhiruu (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Photo caption

Hi. I changed a photo caption with the comment "Seems vanishingly unlikely that the group in the choir stalls, round the organ, are better defined as boarders than choir. Choirs are more likely to have to wear funny uniforms as a side-effect of their status than boarders are to have to sing!" and Mattbuck changed it back with the comment "boarders, not choir". Matt, do you know that that was really a group of boarders and not the choir? It's just that they are hanging around near that organ in a chorally-suspicious manner. I know that it doesn't actually matter, in the cosmic scheme of things, but I'd love to know that it is right. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are boarders. I know this as I was there for several years, and every time a boarder got a prize, the area would erupt with ridiculous amounts of applause/foot-stamping. Choir members only wear bluecoats when they are actually performing as part of the choir, and the prize day has no singing. There was an organist, and someone turning the page for him, but that was all. I accept they are in the choir stalls, but if you took a photo of school assembly you'd see that yr8 pupils are in the choir stalls, regardless of whether or not they are choirists. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Bl**dy H*ll. In my time (takes out pipe, slipper and cardy) at assembly the choir (architectural feature) was full of choir (oiks). As for prizegiving day, thanks for the explanation and I bow, obviously, to your decades-more-recent local knowledge. It was not a situation I'd be familiar with as in my day (takes out whippet and ferret, oops wrong stereotype) it was at the Vic Rooms and therefore the whole thing looked rather more downmarket than in that posh photo. I did rather hope that "looks like choir" = "is choir" but obviously not in this case! Thanks very much for the explanation and happy editing, DBaK (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The Yard

Can anyone provide supporting evidence that the yard is "one of the largest tiled surfaces in Europe"? I've searched in vain for a list of the largest tiled surfaces in Europe. Perhaps another editor knows of one.

I've also sought out the English Heritage listing for QEH, and while there are references to the school building itself, the gatehouse, terrace wall and front steps, I've been unable to find any reference to the yard and its tiling.

I propose that the references in this article to the listed status and continental notability of the yard be deleted if supporting evidence cannot be provided.

92.26.215.194 (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Public occasions

After checking with the school in April 2015 I have confirmed that council prayers and published concerts and lectures are "open to the public," but NOT Prizegiving, Charter Day or the Carol Service. I don't know whether to remove the "Public occasions" section altogether, as the only relevant event seems to be council prayers, or to rename it (to "School events" or similar) as the content does seem helpful? Android923578 (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The current solution of "Annual Events" seems good. (Sorry to surprise you with the hasty reply!) DBaK (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Song Sung Blue (and Yellow)

@Mattbuck: is absolutely right here. He very kindly gave it a home in the lead, where it still makes me slightly uncomfortable every time I see it, and he suggested that stuff like this should really be elsewhere in the article. Matt is right, but where? I just don't see it as all that notable, certainly with nothing to support it. Should it stay in at all, or should we be looking for a better spot for it? DBaK (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)