Talk:List of fellows of the Royal Society

Category

Note there is a category that duplicates this list here Category:Fellows of the Royal Society. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 00:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, but one of the utilities of lists is to create useful redlinks to prod the creation of articles. Additionally, the list can provide short blurbs about each member as well as concise commentary about the various divisions within society membership. — Scientizzle 01:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree about redlinks, but they should be sourced. They are all now sourced to the list to confirm that the person is indeed FRS. Once an article is written about the person, the source can be removed as the article should have the link to prove FRS. In doing this I commented out John Aberry, because he is not on the list and I can find nothing about him. Am I missing something? --Bduke (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're doing a good job...hope I'm not edit conflicting with you very much. John Aberry will need to be confirmed or deleted, IMO. — Scientizzle 23:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Years after names in list?

What does the year after the name in the list mean? And why is sometimes one in brackets? 152.91.9.190 (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The date is, I think, intended to be the date they were awarded the Nobel. However there is some confusion with that date sometimes being in brackets and some times other dates being in brackets. I recommend that only the date of the award be given, and not in brackets. Other dates can be obtained from the link to their article or the source. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bduke, but, take for example Oscar Werner Tiegs. He did not get the Nobel, but did get the David Syme Research Prize in 1928 (and the Clarke Medal in 1956). Perhaps the year should be the year they became fellows (which for Tiegs was 1944)? Perhaps there needs to be a note at the top of the page saying what the year means, especially when there are two years after a name, and they all get checked? At the moment the years are looking unencyclopedic? 152.91.9.190 (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be the date in which they were inducted into the Society. A note specifying such would be useful. — Scientizzle 06:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Just realised that - a slip of the pen. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now checked the entries for the A and Bs, adding the year of election to the Fellowship. I have also, in a comment at the top, suggested the order:-

name, field of science if given, date of election, info on dates of being PRS (and Nobel) if appropriate.

Can we stick with those for consistency. I am now aware just how big this list will be if we add all the Fellows. We have a tiny, tiny percent of the Bs for example. How do we handle this? I am inclined to suggest we delete all the redlinks, but I know we are still missing more than enough to replace the redlinks with Fellows we are missing who do have articles. I have written a few myself. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Your format choice woks well for me. Really big lists often end up divided into separate pages. I'd say keep the redlinks because one of the advantages of lists is the inclusion of redlinks to spur article creation. I'd hazard that just about anyone that's ever been a Fellow of the Royal Society is likely to meet WP:BIO and a redlink is a good thing. The Foreign Members could probably be split out first if and when it comes time... — Scientizzle 17:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, let us see how it goes. It would be relatively easy to make this list too long, for example, by just adding all the FRSs with names starting with B. Generally I do not like red links in lists of people, but here I agree with you. It is inconceivable that a FRS would not be notable. There will also always be sources, from the RS itself. Let us just keep fixing the dates and checking the inclusion. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

i've started using a table for the Z's, any objections? i'm showing 10,000 names in the combined list; they have a date of election, not merely year, and dob; dd Pohick2 (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

there are some conflicts between foreign members, and fellows who are foreigners, i am following the pdf from RS. also i will go back and cleanup the links to disambigs, and links to full names when article is fist, last. Pohick2 (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

given the size of the list i will now split into abc, def,... like was done at Guggenheim Fellowship. Pohick2 (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

ok i've pared list here to "pre-eminent"; btw i added TOC right since the compact TOC didn't work with 2 alphabetic lists members; foreign members Pohick2 (talk) 03:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sir Paul Edmund de Strzelecki FRS

In all sources Strzelecki is written as "Sir Paul Edmund de Strzelecki" aswell as in the (original) list of the FRS. Strezelecki was born in Germany and absolved his Military Service in the Prussian Army this proofs his German nationality. After 1945 Wüstegiersdorf became Polish and the Polish name Głuszyca. Seigneur de Bougie 16:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

according to the RS list reference, he is a Fellow from a "Commonwealth Country", but you do have a point. Pohick2 (talk) 03:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

What are the criteria for inclusion in this list, rather than in the several sub-lists "ABC", DEF" etc. It seems to me that this is quite arbitrary and this list should just link to the sub-lists. What makes one Fellow more notable than another? --Bduke (Discussion) 22:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree it seems completely arbitrary. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Robert Boyle?

surely Boyle should be included on the "short list" of notable fellows.

It's completely arbitrary. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

link rot

The link to the index of Fellows doesn't work. It goes to the FRS site but not to the index. 4.249.96.173 (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Bayes was elected in 1742, and should be included. Bayes' Theorem and all that. He also published a noteworthy defense of Newton's calculus when it was attacked by Berkeley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe marasco (talk • contribs) 05:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Bayes

Thomas Bayes was elected in 1742, and should be included; Bayes' Theorem and all that. He also published a noteworthy defense of Newton's calculus when it was attacked by Berkeley. See the Thomas Bayes entry for verification.

I apologize for the mistaken inclusion of this item under "link rot." That was a mistake I was unable to undo. I would appreciate it if an editor could clean up that little mess. Joe marasco (talk) 06:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The list is completely arbitrary (i.e. useless) Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)