Talk:List of The Doon School alumni

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Former FLC List of The Doon School alumni is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
WikiProject India / Uttarakhand / Education (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Uttarakhand (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Education in India workgroup (marked as Top-importance).
 
Note icon
This article was last assessed in April 2012.
WikiProject Schools (Rated List-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Avoid self-promotional spam[edit]

This page should not be used for self-promotional spam; for the past 2 edits someone has added "Mayank Sharma" as a notable alumni -- presumably this is being done by Mr. Sharma himself, or at his direction. Mr. Sharma does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability -- he has worked for a total of 2 years and has achieved nothing other than establishing a shell company for BPO. The company's website is also a bad site to visit: it hijacks PCs by using a number of browser exploits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spy99 (talkcontribs) 05:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverted[edit]

The merging was not a good idea: everything got merged into one long confusing list. The various constituent pages continued to exist, and so updates were being made erratically to different pages based upon what each user thought was the "right" page.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spy99 (talkcontribs) 21:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Done[edit]

All names of the other articles have been added to this article. Haphar 08:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


The name of the Chairman of Andrew Yule which is given is wrong. Please check and update

Another missing name.[edit]

Mr Adesh Partap Singh Kairon, an MLA. Reference: [1].

Musically ut 19:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dalumni.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Dalumni.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

File:DoonLamp.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:DoonLamp.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:DoonLamp.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is Royalty so prominent?[edit]

Why is "Royalty" the first category shown in this list, which makes it the most prominent category? Of all the categories, it requires the least achievement beyond being born to the right parents. All the other categories require some effort on the part of the people concerned, which makes their achievements notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spy99 (talkcontribs) 03:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't really place them based on the effort required for achievement, though I agree it's more of luck than hard-work. I merely put it up based on Old Harrovians model. Also, when readers see the page, they won't be concerned which section requires the most hard-work. Nor does it imply that Royalty being on top, is the most-illustrious alumni of Doon. It really doesn't matter. But if you wish, you can relegate it! Merlaysamuel :  Chat  11:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not alphabetize the sections? That would be importance neutral. --regentspark (comment) 13:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
That seems reasonable (unless lists are generally organized another way). Nolelover Talk·Contribs 16:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe the current model will allow the readers to see, for example, how many air chief marshals or rhodes scholars has doon produced? Alphabetizing it, in my opinion, will not be as much efficient. Also, I was looking at current featured lists of List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford, List of Dartmouth College alumni where it's divided profession-wise rather than alphabetically...

Merlaysamuel :  Chat  16:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

What I meant was that the sections could be alphabetized. "Armed Forces" followed by "Arts", etc. Royalty first may work for English public schools because titles are still recognized there but I'm not sure it works for Indian schools. Great effort on the list, btw. --regentspark (comment) 22:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words regents. Merlaysamuel :  Chat  17:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Introducing Table[edit]

I am taking the liberty to introduce a table (see:List of Harvard University people). It looks much more organised. I know it's a lot of work but I'm doing it section-wise...starting now! Merlaysamuel :  Chat  17:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am doing it section-wise. Taking a break for sometime. If anyone else wants to continue with tables (a helping hand would be great), please feel free...thanks!

Merlaysamuel :  Chat  19:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Importance[edit]

Technically, a list of alumnus should be of low importance (I've made it mid wherever it was top but low would be more accurate). A school article may have high importance but a alumni list? --regentspark (comment) 13:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Other projects may do things differently, but it has been the practice for a long time at WikiProject Schools for the alumni lists to reflect the importance of the article they are associated with, since they are closely connected. Giving blanket low-importance to alumni lists doesn't make sense as the importance of schools with alumni lists can vary from mid-importance to top-importance, and that inevitably impacts on the importance of any associated articles. If someone wishes to propose an alternative way of doing it, then they should voice their opinion at WT:WPSCH/A. CT Cooper · talk 13:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
No worries. If that's the norm for school wikiproject, then so be it. Doesn't make much sense to me but I'm sure you guys have figured this out. --regentspark (comment) 16:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Well I am open minded to the idea of giving alumni lists a grade (or two) lower than their main article ratings, so a top-importance article might have a high-importance alumni list, a high-importance article would have a mid-importance alumni list and so on. The only downside to this is that it is a little less simple, but would still be better than having them all over the place like it was before it was all standardized. CT Cooper · talk 18:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Some remarks about the list[edit]

  • I believe you should provide the time span of the various appointments (ministers, parliamentarians, military men, businessmen). I notice two ministers of defense, two of surface transport, ... This can be confusing to a reader.
  • Mukarram Jah probably didn't graduate from Doon, for he went to Harrow thereafter. Will need his years at Doon.
  • Rahul Gandhi's picture and mention will need to go. A five sentence story in the Times of India which uses the word "alma mater" is not reliable. There's a lot of sycophancy and brown-nosing in the Indian press, especially in their social events stories. A man who spent less than two years (between the ages of 11 and 13) at Doon School is unlikely to have been influenced in any significant way for the school to claim credit. Also, I don't know why that story is being used as a cite for his uncle Sanjay Gandhi.
  • Frankly, long lists of obscure bureaucrats, military men, diplomats, even writers (notwithstanding fawning Indian press stories) makes the list tiresome. It is in your interest to make it shorter and more relevant. It would be OK on the schools own web site or in an private alumni web page. I believe if a listed person doesn't have a Wikipedia page, he should be removed. Also, those for whom you have recently created stubs, should likely be removed as well (The Jesus College and Dartmouth lists you mention above seem to observe this principle.)
More if I have time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  1. "Mukarram Jah probably didn't graduate from Doon, for he went to Harrow thereafter" seems to be based on the American concept of "graduation" from high schools. That is not the way it works at schools in the British tradition. For inclusion in a list of former pupils WikiProject Schools does not have a minimum period of attendance, let alone a requirement for the person in question to have stayed on at the school until the leaving age.
  2. I really cannot agree that the Times of India is not a reliable source. Whether there is "sycophancy and brown-nosing" in the Indian press or not, that is beside the point in citing attendance at a particular school from a leading national newspaper.
  3. "Frankly, long lists of obscure bureaucrats, military men, diplomats, even writers... makes the list tiresome". The issue here is not obscurity but notability. Plenty of obscure people are notable. Lists are rarely anything but "tiresome".
  4. "It is in your interest to make it shorter and more relevant." This is quite wrong. It is in the interest of Wikipedia to include only notable Doscos, but cutting out anyone for the sake of "shortness" would be an error. With regard to "more relevant", the only relevant factors here are notability and attendance at the school. Names which lack one or the other should be challenged with "[citation needed]" and removed later.
  5. "I believe if a listed person doesn't have a Wikipedia page, he should be removed." That is not the policy of WikiProject Schools. People without articles can be included, but only if notable and supported by a suitable citation.
  6. "Also, those for whom you have recently created stubs, should likely be removed as well." This is only correct if the subjects are not notable. The issue is notability, not whether the article is a stub. (I am curious, is "likely" an adverb now in American English?) Moonraker (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Moonraker, (OED, 2nd edition 1989, revised March 2012: 1601 R. Johnson tr. G. Botero Travellers Breviat (1603) 104 When of one house there be three or fower brethren, likely one or two of them give themselves to trafique and merchandize. 1895 Leeds Mercury 12 Sept. 4/8 He will likely be asked afresh whether [etc.]. 1919 E. O'Neill Ile in Moon of Caribbees (1923) 10 I'm afeard there'll be trouble with the hands by the look o' things. They'll likely turn ugly…if you don't put back. 1931 E. O'Neill Mourning becomes Electra i. i. 37 You've likely heard gossip. 1970 Toronto Daily Star 24 Sept. 12/8 The heroin addict likely will retrace or repeat many strokes of the pen, showing he is not in full control of his neuromuscular functions.) Likely (meaning "probably," now "most likely" or "very likely" in British English) was used in Middle English and early Modern English. It has long been used in N. American English. Best not to take me on when it comes to the English language. I could take you to the cleaners in a New York minute. You want to mull over a doozy? Here's your very own: "Lists are rarely anything but 'tiresome'." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the long history of "likely" as an adverb. Still, in the UK it isn't standard English, and I suppose Fowler disapproves. I had to look up the word doozy, but happy to repeat that lists are rarely anything but tiresome. Moonraker (talk) 01:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
So you agree that they are tiresome? We're making progress.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I concur with Moonraker.

Merlaysamuel :  Chat  10:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

List is a list[edit]

If I could offer a comment of my own, the paragraphs at the head of the page seem to me to stray beyond what the list is for. The only focus should surely be the ex-Doscos. Moonraker (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Poppycock. I submit the three that have already made FL: List of Old Guildfordians (Royal Grammar School, Guildford), List of Benet Academy alumni, List of Boston Latin School alumni. They have decent introductions, to the schools, this is. The lists are short and snappy. Those listed have Wikipedia pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the links. As they are featured lists, it seems this expansiveness is approved of. Moonraker (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
PS All three Featured Lists are alphabetical. That, among other things, prevents double listing and triple listing, as currently seems to be the case here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't know of any policy which favours lists of this kind being alphabetical. In some cases a chronological approach works. Some sorting into sections based on occupation is the norm and generally works well. It also has the advantage of highlighting what kind of people the school produces. I have taken that approach at the Lawrence School, Sanawar. Moonraker (talk) 05:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe the list should not go alphabetical. Fowler, the examples you are giving for Guildford and Benet work because there list is quite short as compared to Doon, also, there does not seem to be a need for sub-sections (such as: politicians, sportsmen). Also, I would like to draw your attention towards List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford, which is a Featured List and clearly states "The sub-headings are given as a general guide and some names might fit under more than one category" So I see no problem if names fit under one or more category. The list should not be alphabetical in my opinion. Merlaysamuel :  Chat  10:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If Boston Latin with a 335 year history and RGS Guildford with a 500+ can go alphabetical, so can Doon with its 75. Toss out the trash in the trash barrel. There's plenty of that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

We're not looking at years of history my friend. At the moment, we're more concerned with what's in the list. :) Merlaysamuel :  Chat  11:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

And I'm suggesting its mostly trash. Boston Latin has Ralph Waldo Emerson, Doon has a news anchor who's written a "novel" in English that no seems to have reviewed at least in any newspaper or scholarly journal in the English speaking world (except for one news magazine in India that you're quick to cite). Let me suggest that your principal allegiance—as you write this article—should be to rigorous standards of sourcing and attribution, not to the school; otherwise, you're setting yourself up for disappointment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Jesus College is a College (different Wiki Project). Doon is a schoool. All the FLs in WP:SCHOOLS as well as the potential FLC, List of Old Malvernians, are alphabetical. The last is just as long as Doon. I suspect I know why you guys have divided your list in this fashion; it allows for more showboating and puffery. People are forced to look at names that their eyes would normally glaze over. Sure, it makes the school look good, but that's not what an encyclopedia is about. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Fowler, thanks for your opinion that the list is "trash" but let the readers decide that. Moreover, that is no criterion for why it should be placed alphabetically. And your comment "People are forced to look at names....." is unjustified. No one is forced to do anything really! Moreover, you're just wasting your time comparing the list to other schools. You sound like advertising for other schools "x school has Ralph Waldo Emerson Doon has trash writers...." What has that got to do with improving this list? I advise you get your priorities right. And for your information, "we guys" have not divided the list in this fashion. It has been like this for the past 6 years! Merlaysamuel :  Chat  16:32, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Merlaysamuel. Calling people "trash" strikes me as a bit extreme, Fowler&fowler, and it undermines your case, as it's plainly not correct. In any event, the issue here is notability, not trashiness. In the modern world many notable people can be called trashy. Notability needs to be challenged article by article or name by name, not collectively. With regard to "showboating and puffery", dividing a list into sections is convenient for navigation and in my view usually makes it less "tiresome", to use your word. Alphabetical order, when you think about it, is a random order based on nothing but the indexing principle. If your aim (as suggested by the "tiresome" comment) is readable lists, then a simple alphabetical list is even more tiresome to read through than one with a more rational structure. Moonraker (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I withdraw "in the modern world". Huge numbers of notable people throughout history can be called trashy. "Our Guildensterns play Hamlet for us, and our Hamlets have to jest like Prince Hal". Moonraker (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I partly agree with fowler. The multiple sectioning does not add value here. I'd suggest, at the least, combining sections. For example, combine all Armed Forces into one section that contains all alumnus, whether they are/were in the Army, Navy or Air Force and whether they were Indians or PakistanisYes check.svg Done. Then, I'd take all bureaucrats, politicians, and diplomats, and pop them into a single "Government category".Yes check.svg Done Similarly, rename "Commerce and Finance" (what the heck is that?) as "Business" and remove all the subsections (many of them, oddly, have but one entry)Yes check.svg Done. Same for Education - there is no need to have separate sections for different levels (and one for Rhodes scholars which then repeats "Rhodes Scholar" for every entry!)Yes check.svg Done. Finally, I again urge you to move the royalty somewhere else. This is a list of Indians and Indian royalty is not really all that notableYes check.svg Done. --regentspark (comment) 16:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with regentspark, and I have followed pretty much that line at the Lawrence School, Sanawar. Of course, the more people there are in the list, the harder it gets to keep the number of sections to a minimum, but one "armed services", one "public life", one "performing arts" (or something similar) works for me. Moonraker (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Regents, I totally agree with you. Why can't Fowler, instead of venting his disgust about Doon SChool (and Doscos), provide sound significant suggestions like you do? You have exactly pinpointed the issues with this list. I'm acting on your advise. Many thanks! Merlaysamuel :  Chat  16:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

When I do, as I did with the titular princes, you put the garbage back in. Let me state it again clearly. All princely titles were abolished by the Government of India in 1971. The princes can all themselves whatever they want, but they have had no official status after 1971. Also, the genealogy sites that you are using are not reliable sources. There are only three in that list. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, this is really not relevant here, but I should just like to point out (once again) that the princely titles were not "abolished". Parliament withdrew recognition of them. What it abolished was the purses. Moonraker (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not trash. Once you removed them, you didn't bother to place them anywhere else? You just knocked them off the list, albeit being Doon alumni. That is not done. And where else do we put Maharaja of Kapurthala for instance. We can rename the subsection then....for the time being I've placed them at the bottom. I'm working on other suggestions! Merlaysamuel :  Chat  17:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, names should not be deleted peremptorily. By all means challenge them and wait for a reply. Moonraker (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Put them in a separate section called Orphaned Alums, but not at the bottom of the princely section, especially not with newly concocted periods of reign. That's disingenuous Merleysamuel! Moonraker, please don't repeat OR you were spinning in the List of Pretenders page. You know what happened there? The page got deleted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
For goodness' sake, Fowler&fowler, it is not "OR" to correct an egregious error by referring to the relevant primary sources. You turn a blind eye to the truth and continue to rely on sources which have been shown to be wrong. That is not intellectually respectable. Moonraker (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Then, I'd take all bureaucrats, politicians, and diplomats, and pop them into a single "Government category" (RegentsPark) I'm afraid that's not been done. The politicians continue to exist in a myriad categories. They should all be listed alphabetically, along with the bureaucrats and diplomats under "government." Similarly, there should be one section: Arts, Education, Media and Sports. The writers, artists, sportsmen should all be listed in it alphabetically. All in all, there would be four sections: 1) Government, 2) Armed Forces, 3) Business, and 4) Arts, Education, Media and Sports. If you want you can keep the three royals at the end, but perhaps they can be listed under "Government" since they were on the dole (receiving "privy purses") during their all-too-brief fling at titular royalty. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I've come up with another idea. Just wait for sometime...! Merlaysamuel :  Chat  10:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I have merged some sub-sections now. I don't think there should be just one section 'Government' and all the names under it. It will look tedious and "tiresome". It is important to have sub-sections under Government as the roles are varied. Same applies to Arts, Education, Media and Sports. I don't see any problem having different sub-sections there. It will be utter chaotic to bring them under one header. Also, it's not that we've run out of space and are compelled to shove everything under one header by just making long-worded headers. Might as well bring everything under "Government, Entertainment, Sports, Media and Business" smile We can think of introducing a section titled 'Public figures' and get all of that under it. But I strongly feel that no more sub-sections should be dissolved under Government now. Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  13:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Not enough. You have not implemented RegentsPark's suggestions. Throw out the inane subsections in Government. The princely garbage remains besides in all its exaggerations and with all its lies. I'm wise to your conceits my friend. This is not a private website that shows the school off. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Fowler - I don't see any showing-off here. Wikipedia is a comprehensive encyclopedia and readers should, by all means, know what kind of Alumni the Doon School has produced, albeit being "trash" in your opinion. Would you then also call the following Featured lists reeking of puffery?:- List of Brigham Young University alumni, List of United States Air Force Academy alumni, List of Dartmouth College alumni.....i can keep on stating them and don't say they are universities and Doon is a school. After all, they are puff pieces too then and not a website for the alumni of a respective university! Seeing all this, and your comments over the past couple of days, my friendly advice is that you should take a step away from the List (and perhaps Wikipedia) for a few days. I can spot the early signs of a "wikimeltdown" and you seem to be heading for one. Go read WP:OWN, which is all about people who presume to own an article; then go read WP:SPA, about people who focus all their efforts onto just one topic - which isn't necessarily a bad thing until it becomes obsessive and those people start exhibiting ownership behaviour. I know you're not really fond of Doon School or Doscos, that's fine, but it's turning out to be counter-productive here. It's just all too visible (from your earliest comments, which you deleted yourself.... uptil now) that you want the List to be trashed! I don't know how much I can rely upon the suggestions of a person (Read:Fowler!) who think the list is trash, Doscos are trash...and, hence, is biased. After having such opinions, you really cannot defend your neutrality. I humbly suggest that a short break to contemplate what you want to get from Wikipedia will do you a world of good! Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  16:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Both BYU and Air Force are colleges. You can't repetitively keep comparing Doon, a boys only high school, with colleges and universities. However, all three alum featured lists of schools are alphabetical; the one potential FLC is also alphabetical. The last is as long if not longer than Doon. As for the BYU and Air Force lists, the individual entries are all Wikipedia pages and, upon my examination, turned out to have existed long before their list was made. This is very different from Doon, where many entries have not acquired enough notability to have Wikipedia pages, and many who apparently do were expressly created for the list (as you well know since you recently created them). I'm afraid that is what an SPA is, someone who has done nothing outside one narrow topic (viz Doon School) since he arrived on Wikipedia, not someone like me who has done a thing or two besides Doon school. Unfortunately, Doon doesn't loom large enough in my life for me to dislike it. As already mentioned, I had never hear either of the list page or the school's own page, until you posted on WT:INDIA. I've been critical of the Gandhi page (see my critique of the lead, which made me rewrite it). No one there seems to be suggesting I dislike Gandhi or (for heaven's sakes) that I'm an SPA. You're a newbie so I'll chalk your Wikilawyering to not knowing the ropes. For the same reason, for the time being, I won't bother with the arrangement of subsections and let others such as RP weigh in. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Your editing for Mahatma Gandhi is a different thing. You have openly confessed many times, since you've come here, that you didn't like the idea of Doon alumni becoming a featured list. Let me quote to you your very first biased remark:- "There are scores of schools in India that take in the children of the privileged. Why single this one out? More pertinently, why not a list of schools that India's less privileged—80% of its population—go to? A featured list of Government schools, whose students, lacking a putrid parental legacy of ill-gotten gains, lacking decent class rooms, decent teachers, and any playing fields, are nevertheless able to make a decent life for themselves. ".....After all that you really expect me to believe that you'll be neutral towards editing the Doon alumni list???? And also, are you really discouraging me to make articles on Doon alumni?? I don't think that's a wrong thing. You seem to have a problem with it. If you think they're not notable just go and put them up for deletion, but before doing that just go to google and search if they've really done soemthing worthwhile....if not, go delete them! Moreover, somebody has to start the article, only then can others see and contribute towards it. That's, in essence, the whole spirit of Wikipedia. And don't be so naive to think that a newbie doesn't know anything....it's an even greater pity then that I've to remind you, a silver-haired all-knowing experienced Wiki editor, of the rules of Neutrality. I am afraid you're not really much help here...you're just trying to squeeze out your own way. Fowler you'd be better off spending your energies elsewhere, where you can be neutral and unbiased. Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  10:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler, I completely agree with Merlaysamuel. With such comments as "putrid parental legacy of ill-gotten gains", you cannot be seen as an objective contributor here. Moonraker (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think I just realised Mr. Fowler's true intention through one of his comments and i quote it verbatim:- " ... by assigning the FL star, we can make an elite private school which, has produced some upper level politicians, bureaucrats, and army men in India, but nothing exceptional (no Nobel laureates, no outstanding musicians, no famous scientists), into something that may begin to appear vital." ...the statement only shows that you didn't want Doon to become a featured list. More importantly, do you weigh notability only in terms of Nobel prizes and world-famous scientists???? After that parochial statement of yours, all your suggestions and contributions towards improving this list should be treated as nothing but jest! DoscoinDoon (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Collapsing the sections has definitely made it much better (visually!). I'd still suggest moving Rahul Gandhi to the section below (single items are not usually a good idea). Also, there are some lingering issues with matching images with sections (Amitav Ghosh and Rahul Gandhi are both out of place). Nice work! --regentspark (comment) 13:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Minor comment[edit]

Just saw that this is under FL review. Hence some minor comments.

  • Is the list arranged alphabetically; with surnames? Royalty section needs to be rearranged. Two Khans are between two Singhs.
  • Mukarram Jah's pic in that section is so useless. (Its useless in his article's infobox also.)
  • Is there a reason why table is not sortable per class year?
  • Bunker Roy, Vijay Prashad, Amitav Ghosh's pics should be where their names are.
  • ? missing in Class year cell for Gautam Vohra.
  • In my opinion, the section 1 of Government should be rearranged as 1.1 Prime Minister, 1.2 Cabinet Ministers, 1.3 Chief Ministers, 1.4 Members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies, 1.5 Diplomats and Bureaucrats and 1.6 Maoist Activist

§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to answer some of your queries:- The list is not arranged alphabetically but only profession-wise. The rest of the suggestions seem sound. I'm incorporating them...thanks for your contribution. Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  09:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I get that...Govt, Business, Art, Sports, etc... What i meant was within these table how they are arranged. They mostly seem to be alphabetical with surnames. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, within the sub-sections they've been placed randomly. Would you advise a specific order? Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  09:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

There should be some order. I was expecting Class year wise. Makes more sense. But found that most are arranged per surnames. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The school sucks when it comes to mathematics and science. And most people I found in the list (especially the politicians and the businessmen) do not deserve much credit, at least the school has got to do absolutely NOTHING with it, they were either born to rich parents or simply inherited their parents position or business. We should either remove their names or put them at the end of the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.12.114.82 (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Look at the article on Malvinder Mohan Singh - what has he done that his name is on the list? He is a FORMER Chairman and CEO of Ranbaxy Laboratories. And who founded Ranbaxy Laboratories? -- his grandfather. So he just inherited the family business and after that he could not even manage it - the company went through losses when he was the CEO of the company and the Japanese took over it. And for that his name is on the list? ALONG WITH A STUPID PHOTOGRAPH? What is the photograph doing there? Even his name should not be there in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.12.114.82 (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing your opinions so candidly but this is an encyclopedia and Malvinder Mohan Singh, being a graduate of the Doon School has to be mentioned in this list, notwithstanding what you think of him. Also, thanks for bringing up the Ranbaxy issue as it needed an update. He is now the executive-chairman of Fortis Healthcare, which is now reflected in the list. --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  22:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)