Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject England page.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4|
|WikiProject England||(Rated Project-class)|
Private school articles
I have tagged a number of private school articles (mostly in England) with "advert". Many of them seem to be written to prove how academically superior they are (despite the fact their pass rates are artificially boosted by scholarship), and how many of them get into Oxbridge (which is usually by interview anyway.)
Another common problem in these articles seems to be "recentism" (for want of a better term), and there seems to be a recurring theme of new science blocks being built, and of extensive trips abroad.
The obvious implication is that many of these articles are being doctored by the staff of the schools. The articles end up reading like the official websites for these places, giving only good promotional info on them. While these places have been implicated in various scandals, there's not a whiff of them on most of the pages.-MacRùsgail (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with some of what is said here. A lot of schools generally seem to just be adverts or copied wholesale from their websites. I also fully agree that a lot of them need to be improved dramatically or wiped. However I detect a slight political/social agenda in the tone of the above comments re: scandals and phrasing such as "not a whiff of them," and especially "(despite the fact their pass rates are artificially boosted by scholarship), and how many of them get into Oxbridge (which is usually by interview anyway.)" I feel the above user might have a slight chip on their shoulder about private/public schools masquerading as wanting to improve said articles. Therefore there is a bias in wanting to "improve" said articles.
Though I would like to repeat and emphasize that I do agree with the principle of cleaning a lot of them up. Especially to make them less like adverts and provide genuine history of schools. I tend to find this is true of all schools not just private ones. We need to remember that we should be presenting facts and not opinions and especially never drive things via a political agenda or motivation.
Hello, I am just letting everyone here know that I have nominated Sleaford, a market town in Lincolnshire, for Good Article assessment (see WP:GAN#PLACE). Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC).
I would be extremely interested being a Sleafordian myself.
As well as the main project for England there are many county and regional projects, would it make sense to simply treat them as sub projects of England and only tag villages etc for the county projects? ϢereSpielChequers 14:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- Personally I tag for both the County project and the England project, often there is little activity on some of the county projects and the England one catches notifications that may otherwise be missed. Keith D (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Only Fools and Horses - FAR
I've put Only Fools and Horses up for review of its featured status at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Only Fools and Horses/archive1. Improvements and comments welcome BencherliteTalk 11:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
TfD for Template:Churches in Bristol
There is a template deletion discussion occurring @ Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 23#Template:Churches in Bristol which may be of interest to members of WikiProject England. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)