# Talk:King's College London

I have removed former President of India Abdul Kalam from the alumni section of this article despite there being a citation. The source does not appear that reliable, even though they are the words no less of Prinipal Rick Trainor, however I believe that he is most probably refering to Kalam as an alumnus in an honorary sense. See here. I could not find much on google to substantiate claims that he was at KCL. If anyone can find a reliable citation then of course by all means add him back.

Isn't the Archbishop of Canterbury the ex-officio Visitor? Why is it listed as vacant, though? Was it because the resignation of Justin Welby? 
If it's ex-officio, I think it should be written "Archbishop of Canterbury, ex officio" just like the University of Kent's page. However, the new Archbishop of Canterbury has been elected, so I think her name should be there.
Southeastviewer (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

The new archbishop will be confirmed in January, until then there she is archbishop designate and there is no archbishop. I agree it should probably be "Archbishop of Canterbury, ex officio (vacant)" rather than just vacant, unless there is provision for a suffragan bishop or someone else to be visitor during a vacancy in the office of the ex-officio visitor (as Durham has). Robminchin (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
@Robminchin: the article says Under the 2023 royal charter, the visitor is appointed by the monarch on the representation of the council of the university, so vacant is probably correct. TSventon (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! I thought from the way the question was written that it was ex officio and didn't actually check that was still the case - it looks like that changed a couple of years ago. In that case it should definitely be vacant until a new visitor is appointed. Robminchin (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
If that's the case, then Justin Welby wouldn't be the Visitor since 2023, right? So is it really confirmed that Archbishop of Canterbury is not ex-officio Visitor anymore?
cc: @TSventon
Southeastviewer (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
The part of the article I quoted references a pdf of the current royal charter. I assume that Welby would continue as visitor until he resigned or was replaced. The article also says By virtue of its foundation, King's enjoys the patronage of the monarch, the Archbishop of Canterbury as its visitor ... so that should be updated. TSventon (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I noticed you're removing the awards without "claims". To be honest, I'm confused about what you mean, because then you should delete that whole paragraph since none of them provides any references, right? And the reason I did not put references was because the previous awards were also not citing references. 
But that does not mean they are false. 
- Winner of Booker Prize: Anita Brookner.
- Winner of Hugo and Nebula Awards: Arthur C. Clarke.
Both novelists, especially Clarke, are well-known in literary world. 
- Grammy award winner: John Eliot Gardiner
All of them are accurate facts. The issue is whether we should give actual citation, but they should not be deleted. One thing that should be revised, perhaps, the Grammy and Golden Globe. Gardiner won two. I do not know if other alumni won Grammy. Meanwhile, I just rechecked that Nyman was only nominated. 
@Robminchin
Southeastviewer (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the main body. The other awards are discussed and referenced in the body. These awards were neither discussed in the body nor referenced. They were thus deleted according to both WP:Verifiability and WP:LEAD. Robminchin (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Of the three you mention, I also see that only Clarke has been considered notable enough to include on this page rather than the main List of alumni of King's College London page. The notable alumni section is already very full (it was cut down recently to maintain GA status, but is still over-large), so these should not be added unless someone else is removed. Just because something is a fact, it does not mean it has to be added here. Robminchin (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
You are showing your bias against artistic merits. The Booker Prize, if you do not know, is one of the most prestigious literary prize in the world, probably next to the Nobel Prize in Literature itself. That a King's alumni was a Booker Prize winner is a great fact for the students and readers alike.
Grammy is also the highest achievement in the music industry.
The question is why would this page exclude those great achievements while listing "stem cell/mammal cloning" and the Oscar itself? This is an important question that you need to seriously answer.
Southeastviewer (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
You're right, those are also (except for the Oscars) not discussed in the body so should not be in the lead. Robminchin (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
Well, King's itself doesn't think being a Booker winner is notable enough to bother listing on it's notable alumni page [1], which gives John Keats, Thomas Hardy, WS Gilbert, and Virginia Woolf (Keats, who died in 1821, obviously did not actually attend King's as it only opened a decade after his death). Robminchin (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
I just saw your comment. To be honest, your thinking framework comes across as if Wikipedia is a PR-page. "Well, King's itself doesn't think being a Booker winner is notable enough to bother listing on it's notable alumni page"
But Wikipedia is not about PR, no? Booker and Grammy awards are highly prestigious prizes in their respective fields. If KCL's website managers couldn't spot that, it's their problem to address. For Wikipedia, they should be included anyway.
Southeastviewer (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Insults won't get you anywhere. What I offered was evidence that these awards are not considered as prestigious as those listed. And it's pretty obvious that they are not as well recognised as the Nobels or the Oscars. All sorts of things are prestigious in their respective fields, but that doesn't mean we should list them all. Robminchin (talk) 04:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Why is KCL's coat of arms in the infobox always replaced by a version that looks significantly different? It can't really be copyright issues as in the wiki article Coat of arms of King's College London, the original coat of arms is displayed. So why not in the KCL article? 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:11D0:F1F8:3C00:4986 (talk) 09:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Because the original coat of arms was replaced in 1995. The original coat of arms is shown in the article on the coat of arms (along with the coats of arms of Queen Elizabeth College and Chelsea College) as this traces the historical development. The original coat of arms is also shown in the 'Coat of arms' section in this article. Robminchin (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
@Robminchin: ok, thanks for your input. So... if that's the case (i don't want to argue with you, I'm really just wondering), why can't I find the version in KCL's Wikipedia article anywhere else? When I search for KCL coat of arms via Google, I can only find the original one. Even images showing the iron gate at Strand campus show the original one. Again, I don't want to argue with you, you may be right that it was replaced by the version in the KCL wiki article now, but why can't I find that coat of arms anywhere else? Even when I google images of KCL diplomas (which show diplomas from just recently), they show that original coat of arms. 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:11D0:F1F8:3C00:4986 (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
What are you referring to as the original coat of arms? I just looked up images of the Strand Campus gates and they show the same coat of arms as the top of this article. The original coat of arms are the ones in the image I've attached to this post. Robminchin (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
@Robminchin Thanks for your answer. It seems we are talking about different things. In answer to your question: I am referring to this image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arms_of_King%27s_College_London.svg . However, the KCL wikipedia article is featuring this image in the infobox: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:King%27s_College,_London_arms.svg . My question is now: why is the first image not in the infobox of the KCL article? That's the image you see on the iron gates and the diplomas of KCL, see here https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-the-coat-of-arms-badge-or-emblem-insignia-of-kings-college-in-central-174624475.html and here Google images of KCL diploma. 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:11D0:F1F8:3C00:4986 (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Ah, that makes more sense now. Those are the same coat of arms, but the other image (the one not shown on the page here) is the full achievement, with the motto and the crest (and mantling), while the one shown on this page is the shield only. It's quite normal to just show the shield – the same is done in the Cardiff University article, for example, where the full achievement has (unusually for a university) got supporters.
There are also some artistic differences in how the coat of arms has been drawn, most obviously in the shape of the crown, but these aren't significant heraldically. Robminchin (talk) 05:36, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
@Robminchin ok... but wouldn't you say that the image shown here has been so much altered that it doesn't correspond to the real shield? The anchor and the crown are slightly different and also many colors in the shield. Wouldn't it make more sense to show the former image, the full achievement one, here? That's the one you see in KCL wiki articles in pretty much all other languages, it's the one you see on the Strand iron gate, it's the one you see on diplomas... showing just the shield... well I would show the full achievement version but that's just me, if showing merely the shield, then that should fully correspond to the shield in the full achievement version, not with differences in colors and symbols, don't you agree? If one decided to show just the shield, one could use this image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shield_of_King%27s_College_London.svg . This one corresponds to the full achievement version with just the shield. 2A02:1210:2C5A:AE00:183F:DFB8:5066:B405 (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
The crown, anchor and colours are heraldically the same between the different representations – none of them are more 'correct' than any other. But there's no particular reason we couldn't use the version you linked, and it would give more consistency between the different pages so it's probably a good idea to do so. Robminchin (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2025 (UTC)