Jump to content

Talk:Oswestry School

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

History prior to deletion: 

   * (cur) (last)  22:03, 29 May 2004 Duncharris (for both boys and girls)
   * (cur) (last) 22:36, 26 May 2004 Duncharris (fmt)
   * (cur) (last) 19:37, 26 May 2004 Duncharris (copyedit, remove staff- non-notable. keep name of headmaster in main text.)
   * (cur) (last) 17:43, 25 May 2004 Sexyfoxboy (=Staff=)
   * (cur) (last) 17:41, 25 May 2004 Sexyfoxboy
   * (cur) (last) 14:54, 23 May 2004 Duncharris (delete copyvio material)
   * (cur) (last) 14:51, 23 May 2004 Duncharris (copyvio - rewrite.)
   * (cur) (last) 12:22, 23 May 2004 Sexyfoxboy
   * (cur) (last) 12:22, 23 May 2004 Sexyfoxboy
   * (cur) (last) 12:20, 23 May 2004 Sexyfoxboy
   * (cur) (last) 12:19, 23 May 2004 Sexyfoxboy
   * (cur) (last) 12:18, 23 May 2004 Sexyfoxboy
   * (cur) (last) 12:17, 23 May 2004 Sexyfoxboy
-- Jim Regan 01:47, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Second Oldest non-denominational school

[edit]

Whilst I do not necessarily dispute this claim, I'm not sure if there is an older non-denominational school. Poshseagull (talk) 08:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now changed it. Seeing the article on Sevenoaks School, there seems to be a false assumption that Winchester College is non-denominational. Poshseagull (talk) 08:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://13547286.test.prositehosting.co.uk/History-of-Oswestry-School/A_Short_Introduction_to_the_History_of_Oswestry_School_printer.php. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

[edit]

Not quite sure why 88.215.37.80 seems to be so ashamed of the decision to explore Bellan closing as a Prep School? Text was agreed with the school. Nonetheless I am not entering into a Edit War about it. Will dig further now to see if there is more to this than I first thought due to what appears to be a multi-ip address campaign to suppress this information. Alphaceo (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete other people's comments on talk pages. Rules here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments Alphaceo (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As someone with a SERIOUS interest in the Bellan matter. I have to say that I am very unimpressed by the actions of Testcase. I assume this is someone associated with the school and can I say that your behaviour is not helping and serving only to make us want to ask more questions about the intentions for Bellan. This is not a 'game'. Like many other parents, I know who Alphaceo is and we appreciate his efforts on our behalf. Some honesty about this from the school and not the usual 'spin' would be appreciated as well as an end to this rather pathetic behaviour Testcase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.229.2 (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind you all that new messages on a talk page go at the bottom of the page, not at the top (so I have moved your various recently misplaced messages), and also that messages on a talk page should be signed, in accordance with the instructions at WP:Signatures. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bellan change by John reverted to text agreed with school. WP:V covered as DanielCooling OSICT is employee of school and the text re Bellan was agreed upon following painstaking negotiation to ensure accuracy. Alphaceo (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it would need a reliable source. The school doesn't get to decide what is here; that's what your own website is here for. In fact, the school and its representatives need to be very careful about editing this article at all. --John (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable source (2nd Para) added - Alphaceo (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a primary source. I'll let it stand for now while I think about it. What I said here and on your talk page sill stands. --John (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a primary source and I suggest you actually read primary source, namely the bit that says: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia. This section pertains to an announcement made by the headmaster and the source is the announcement made by the headmaster; it doesn't get any simpler than that. Alphaceo (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, well as an administrator on the site I have read it, many, many times. I was thinking of the bit where it says "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." It doesn't, as you say, get any simpler than that. There is quite a lot of material which will have to be trimmed, unless it can be sourced reliably from third-party sources. --John (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the Oswestry School page was fine until Alphaceo came along and started messing around with it. In my opinion it should be reverted to how it use to be. One paragraph from one Headmaster's letter does not need to be included here, especially as no decisions have been made on the matter. I can also think of many more important pieces of information from other Headmaster's letters. Why has Alphaceo ignored these? Why focus on Bellan? From where I'm sitting it looks like he has a dangerous agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shockwave12 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Onto a 'non-Bellan' matter, is the new £400,000 hockey pitch worthy of inclusion? [1] - Alphaceo (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

£400K on a hockey pitch? surely that can't be right? at least I hope it isn't. 213.205.224.119 (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oswestry School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oswestry School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oswestry School

[edit]

This is to answer the question in your edit summary. Of course, a head, past or present, isn't necessarily notable in the Wikipedia sense, as individuals some are notable and some aren't. But non-notable people can be included in articles, and often are. It isn't just my opinion that the names of heads deserve to be included in the article about the school, many articles here have such lists. I suppose it could even be argued that the history of a school is not complete without some such information. I am not aware of any specific WP policy one way or the other, but do you have any argument against the list of recent heads? Regards, Moonraker (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's WP:OTHER as to why we shouldn't include information in article "A" just because it's in article "B". It needs to be shown why the information is necessary and pertinent to article "B", rather than just saying it's because article "A" has it as well.
My argument against is just that as non-notable individuals they have no real place in the article. Did any of them do anything major or specific to influence the history of the school? Douglas Robb sets a benchmark that the others need to meet to warrant inclusion. I think your addition of him to the article is fine and suitable, but not for the others.
If you want to include headmasters, why are you only including those from 1974 onward? Why not all the earlier ones as well? Where do you draw the line? Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Chaheel Riens, it is plainly mistaken to believe that only "notable" people can be referred to in Wikipedia articles. Almost every WP article does exactly that, and most also rely on information cited from people who may or may not be notable. The answer to your last question is that the farther back we go, the harder it is to find the information. But do you have any policy-based argument in favour of deleting the list of recent heads? You could of course add "citation needed" tags where lacking, no problem with that. Moonraker (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is your opinion. You haven't actually made any argument for inclusion, apart from saying that non-notable people can be included, a somewhat tenuous reason. You're also basically using WP:OTHER as an argument for inclusion, even though I've already pointed out that you can't do that. What do they contribute to the article? What did they contribute to the school? Why should they be included? My policy based argument is that as per BRD you added them, and I contested it reasoning that the list doesn't improve the article. So now we discuss it. The onus is on you to provide adequate sourcing and reasoning for inclusion in this article. Your sources are not good enough - the first three cannot be verified, I have already agreed to the inclusion of Robb, and the last source just supports the statement that Noad is the Head of the school - this is not something I'm contesting, as that fact can be gleaned from the school's own website[2] - again the question is what have they done to warrant inclusion in the article?
Stokesley School, Sacred Heart Secondary Catholic Voluntary Academy, Northallerton School and Queen Ethelburga's Collegiate make no mention of the Head teachers, Thirsk School and Sixth Form College and Laurence Jackson School mention in the lede who the current head is, but that's it. On the other hand, the now closed Great Ayton Friends' School lists the Head teachers going back to 1841, so it seems that each article is based on individual merit. I could argue that out of my straw poll most articles don't list the Head, ergo that's grounds for removal. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Chaheel Riens, I find your argument back-to-front, but let's begin with the suggestion on the sources that "the first three cannot be verified". Are you saying that Who's Who in Scotland, the Education Year Book and the British and International Music Yearbook are not reliable sources because they are not (so far as we know) online? You believe citations from printed books should not be accepted on Wikipedia? Moonraker (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying they can't be verified online. Can you provide better or alternate sources to show good reason for inclusion? Additionally, can you clarify what you mean by my argument being back to front? I can't respond if you don't explain what you mean. Why is my argument back to front?
Also, you still haven't made any real commentary on why these past heads should be included. Really, that should be the first thing you do in this case. One of your original opinions was to include the list because other pages also do so. I've responded that this rationale is invalid under WP:OTHER and in any case is not actually true. Since then, you haven't brought anything new to the table regarding inclusion.
In every response I've made here I've asked the same question - "Why should the past heads be included in the article?" and each time you've failed to answer. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Chaheel Riens, offline references are perfectly acceptable. No, I can't provide any better ones, and they don't really come a lot better than those. The reason for including the heads is that school principals are key people, and an article about a school is incomplete without them. I do not think you can see that, I am going to ask at Wiki Project Schools for members there to take a look at this thread and give an independent opinion on it. Moonraker (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaheel Riens: "Why should the past heads be included in the article?" -- because a school article belongs to WP:WPSCHOOLS, and WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#OS permits that "a list of former headteachers/principals, with a short description of their achievements, is often useful", and there are quite a few examples of other school articles -- not just some random examples of low-quality WP:OTHER articles, but high-quality articles on the prestigious and well-vetted lists of WP:WPSCHOOLS#Featured articles and WP:WPSCHOOLS#Good articles -- that include a list of former heads of school. Best regards, Yymmff (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of headmasters

[edit]
  • 1974–1985: Frank E. Gerstenberg MA (Cantab)[1]
  • 1985–2000: P. G. Templeton MA (Edinburgh)[2]
  • 2000–2010: P. D. Stockdale BSc MEd[3]
  • 2010–2014: Douglas Robb MA (Edinburgh)[4]
  • 2014– : Julian Noad[5]

For now I am adding the list here, as it has been deleted from the article, and including sources. Moonraker (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Gerstenberg, Frank Eric" in Who's Who in Scotland (1994), p. 164
  2. ^ Education Year Book 1993 (Pearson Education Ltd. 1993), p. 303
  3. ^ Toby Deller, British and International Music Yearbook (2009), p. 341
  4. ^ Tim Jefferis, "Douglas Robb: This is Your Life" dated 7 September 2014 at tjjteacher.com, accessed 27 March 2019
  5. ^ Daniel Heald, New headmaster enjoying life at Oswestry School dated 28 October 2014, accessed 27 March 2019

Removal of references

[edit]

Chaheel Riens, the reference to eBay was a terrible one, and I can support removing that, but this edit says "strip out refs which are not really necessary given they all have articles". So now we have a list with no citations at all, which is plainly contrary to policy. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines#Alumni, which says

All alumni information must be referenced. See Wikipedia:Footnoting for technical help. Individual alumni need a citation to a) verify that they did indeed attend the school, and b) verify the statement of their notability in their short one- or two-line description. When alumni have their own articles in mainspace, it is not necessary for their notability to be referenced, as long as it is done in the biographical articles. Be sure to check the existing biography article to ensure that it demonstrates alumni status with a cited reference.

So we need references for attendance at the school. Really we need to add references to all these names, not strip them out. Moonraker (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oswestry_School&oldid=1208387692"