Talk:King's School, Chester/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about King's School, Chester. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Needs review

I have cleaned up this article a little bit but it still is fairly awful. Certainly a lot of vanity and much of the information is non-encyclopedic. I don't know of a good standard with which to compare this page. Plse advise. SuzanneKn 22:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Unverified Information

This article has been flagged as needing references since January 2007. (In particular, it needs in-text references, using the <ref>...</ref> tags.) Despite this, new unreferenced information is being added to it, sometimes in considerable quantities. I would like to warn those adding such information that, starting from today, all such information is liable to be deleted without further warning if it remains unreferenced. For help with referencing, see WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:References. Additionally, in-text external links are not advised and should be converted into references in line with guidance given in WP:EL. To allow people to find and add references a short period of grace may be given, but it will not be longer than two weeks, which should be adequate for anyone who has recently added material to the article or who wants to discover references for material added some time ago. This is especially adequate given the flagged warning is now 8 months old. Remember, if you think anything needs to be added, it must be referenced, and if it cannot be referenced appropriately, it should not be added.Thank you. DDStretch (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Brief review comments

I rated the article B-class because (1) it does have some inline references and the school websites listed could be assumed to cover much of the material; and (2) it includes a high proportion of the material that a school article should have. The article is currently only just over the borderline of Start, and could be improved by attending to the following points:

References to the external links should be converted to inline referencing wherever possible. Additional references, preferably including reliable print sources, should be added. This is critical to progressing the article to the next level
The lead is too long, and currently contains material which isn't discussed in the main text
Main text sections on history and educational standards should be added, with references
The bullet point sections should preferably be converted to prose
Some prose is overly promotional and should be toned down to be strictly factual
The current article is unbalanced, with too much material in some sections, such as the CCF
Some material included verges on trivia; such unencyclopedic material should be pruned
Additional images would be useful

Espresso Addict 18:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

CCF section

A query has been raised on the Cheshire Wikiproject about the relevance of parts of this material. It does seem very unbalanced in coverage compared with the other school clubs & associations, which have a more appropriate length of coverage, and some of the material currently included does not appear encyclopedic.

The past commanders section is definitely unnecessary and should be removed. Of the other disputed material, I'd be inclined to keep the Achievements section, as this is similar to that of other school clubs & associations and likely to be referencable via local papers etc, though it needs shortening, rendering into prose and referencing. The present commanders I'm ambivalent about; I don't find it interesting but others conceivably might. Perhaps a compromise would be to include just the three highest level, in a brief prose format? Espresso Addict 18:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

CCF History

I fail to see how a history of those past commanders etc. of the CCF is not appropriate. Whilst it is unbalanced with other sections of the school this is a requirement for others to contribute in these fields, not shortern those areas which are well documented. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.76.134.73 (talk) 22:14, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

i feel it is inappropriate as it is basically just a laundry list of unimportant information. these people have no significance beyond having been in charge of just one of hundreds of school Cadet Forces across the United Kingdom, and therefore a list of their names is unenyclopedic. Removing the list is not due to it being unbalanced with other areas: tou are quite right to say that deficient areas should be improved instead of good areas reduced, but this is not what that is. tomasz. 16:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The information regarding past staff is encyclopedic. They are all current or past members of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve and Army Reserve and maintain a right to be listed as part of the contingent's history. The definition of an encyclopedic article cannot be constrained to 'similar schools in the region' if wikipedia is to maintain any respect as a resource. As such, I intend to continue replacing the information as required. The entire point of Wikipedia is to provide an ever increasing amount of knowledge and all this is doing is assisting that cause. I fail to see what credentials or position you may hold that would allow you to act against this.82.10.212.164 (talk) 00:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

i think you are misinterpreting the term "enyclopaedic". lists of names, with nothing to qualify them other than that they served a position in one particular school's army cadet organisation, with no other commendation of notability, are not that. they have no "right" to be in there, as nobody else does either; rather, their presence is determined but the said notability. Wikipedia's purpose is indeed to provide an increasing amount of knowledge; however, it is still not an indiscriminate collection of information, and trivia, which this is, is unlikely to find a useful place either. if the information is replaced it will be removed again. tomasz. 08:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think they should be included, either. However, even if a suitably convincing argument were advanced for their inclusion, they would still be unsatisfactory in every form that they have been added so far, as they are not verified by means of suitable citations (see WP:V, WP:CITE). I know that there is other material in this article and in many others that are in an unverified and uncited state, but that is why it is a good idea to try to insist upon each addition from now on being adequately verified. So, to include them again, they must satisfy the two requirements of (a) justification in terms of verifiable standards of notability as encyclopaedic, and (b) addition of the verifications and justifications by means of suitable intext citations. On both counts, so far, they are always failing. DDStretch (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

With all this in mind I really would, as per my original comment, like some insight as to why you feel you are qualified to define the purpose of this article in the manner that you are doing. It is simply a section of information that is relevant and would be included in many other resources, both academic and accessible, if they were to cover such a subject. Potentially a full list is unacceptable but certainly those who have most recently been in the position is relevant. An encyolpaedic article, by academic definition, should be 'all-embracing' in terms of the information it includes.82.10.212.164 (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, in terms of the changes made to those currently in command you will note that these changes are correct and current.82.10.212.164 (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, i am an editor here, and thus, like all editors may, i feel i can make the judgement that these parts of the article do not comply with Wikipedia standards. i'm not attempting an academic definition of the term "encyclopaedic"; rather, just how the term applies to WP content in a WP context. If you'd like me to point out the relevant WP policies again i am willing to oblige. tomasz. 23:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This is unfortunate considering Wikipedia's struggle to maintain a standard of reliability, especially in academic standing.82.10.212.164 (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not a matter for this page nor of particular relevance to this article. Please review the guidelines and stop reinserting this information without addressing any of the issues. tomasz. 23:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the addition again. It has been removed, since the appropriate citations and verifications had not also been added (as mentioned above, more than once, and now mentioned on the talk page for the ip address of the person adding the material.) I suggest care is taken by this person. Adding of unsourced material may result in higher-order warnings being issued, and more than 3 attempts to re-add the material without discussion and consensus on here falls foul of the WP:3RR guidelines that could bring about a block. Note that the use of appropriate citations may still not yet refute the idea that the material is too detailed given the rest of the article. My suggestion is that (a) the material should not be added again without appropriate citations and verification, and (b) if any addition is made again, it is in the form of a footnote until more content can fill out the rest of the article. Since the person adding the material must have gone to the school, they are in an ideal situation to add more substantive material about the school (verified and cited, of course), that will bulk it out so that the list of people we are arguing about does not seem to overwhelm the rest of the article anymore. DDStretch (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As an addition, I now see that the anonymous user who is re-adding the material violated the WP:3rr rule yesterday, and could have been blocked for period of time. He might consider taking as an act of goodwill that he was not. It would be good if he could then see that a compromise, such as the one I have pointed out, may be the best course forward, and that no further edit warring is required. DDStretch (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have begun to edit and reference the material and will continue to do so over coming periods.82.10.212.164 (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Despite discussion, how can the continuing dispute about adding the CCF past and present leaders in a series of lists be resolved?

We've had a previous discussion about the Combined Cadet Force section, and yet edit-warring seems to be an ongoing problem. This needs to be resolved somehow.

This is an open community. There is no strict definition determining precisely what content should be included in these articles and many would argue both for and against. Without conclusive agreement, it is better to have too much than too little, so leave it in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.120.184 (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the edit-warring is ongoing, and no real discussion is taking place here, I've asked for this page to be fully-protected. Perhaps then edit-warring will be replaced with meaningful discussions on how to proceed. DDStretch (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the response of one to this page protection and notice has been to delete the notice. I hardly think that is going to be persuasive in favour of adding the material! DDStretch (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that 'the powers that be' who are moderating this page have absolutely no intention of allowing this information to remain. That has been made clear by the action of removing the CCF information and then blocking anyone from editing it back. I don't even know why we're wasting our time even discussing this as the 'authorities' around here already appear to have made their decision. This is important history in regard to both the school and CCF. What does my opinion count for though? I haven't got the POWER..... 86.152.199.254 (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way. However, editing the article was prevented precisely because you and another editor were edit-warring on the page, despite there being an invitation to comment and attempt to discuss the matter here. Your response to that was to remove the invitation to discuss the matter—hardly consistent with what you are saying, above, and an action which could be labelled with some accuracy as a Tu quoque response by some others. That you now make allegations as if there is some massive conspiracy against yourself does not help either. Please ask yourself what they are contributing to either yourself or this article, or the values you want to show exist by your edits in this article. I genetly suggest that your actions are not likely to be seen as the actions that reflect highly on yourself or on the school to which I assume you went, or on the CCF of which I also assume you were a member. Can I invite you to discuss the matter in hand now, rather than persisting in making disruptive edits and unfounded allegations? Thank you. DDStretch (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I should start by saying that I deleted the invitation by accident, and for this I should and do apologise. I only realised I had done it when you gave me the warning.

I don't feel there is a conspiracy going on, but I do feel that there is so much opposition from people who appear to have greater editing power that it will never be allowed to remain. The information is an important part of the history of the King's School. For current pupils and Old Boys it will be of interest both now and in the future. For these reasons, it should remain as a point of reference. The Section Commanders are considered senior pupils in the School and therefore have an element of 'status'. If we're going to mention people such as the Headmaster, governers and senior teachers who hold positions within the School, surely we should do the same for pupils who are office holders. 86.152.199.254 (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I stopped by because of a mention of this problem on the WP:schools talk page. I have no vested interest in one side of the other of the discussion, and as yet I don't have an opinion. I should say that I personally generally favor inclusion of information if it appears that it would be relevent to the subject of the article to an uninformed third party reading the article, and it it at least appears that it is verifiable. (Even better if there are actually verifiable references!)

That said, if you look at the WP:schools page, you will see some suggestions on what to put in articles on schools, and what not to put in articles on schools. In the not category are current students and faculty. These people are quite simply generally not notable outside of the local community, so not of interest to a disinterested 3rd party that wants to know about the school.

There is typically a section titled notable alumni or the like. It is supposed to list (past) students with actual verifiable notability. This would generally be people that have gone on to do things sufficiently notable that they have their own Wikipedia article, or someone has written a story about them in some other reliable reference source. (Youtube and Myspace do not count as "reliable".) This section is typically very badly abused in most school articles, typically by students listing themselves and giving absolutely no reason for notability.

It appears from what I've read here so far that the case under discussion is a list of past students that were head of a particular important student organization. While I'm willing to concede that the organization may be as notable as the school, my first thought is to wonder whether the notability of the organization somehow confers notability onto the successive heads of the organization. Think about it in a disinterested way: you are looking at the article on the International Association of Fuddie-Duddies, which was founded in 1483. The first (or maybe even first few) Grand Deacons might be interesting, because they founded the organization. But are you really going to be that interested in reading a page and a half of the names of people you have never heard of, and which seem to never have done anything of note other than somehow be head of the Fuddie-Duddies in 1786? I suspect that you won't find that list very interesting. I'm pretty sure I would consider it boring.

Now, some few of the people in the list might be interesting in their own right -- they may have gone on to start a war or something. It would probably be worth listing those people, since you will have a link to a more complete article on them, and a short sentence of why they are important. But I'm just not sure that they would all be worth listing in the school article.

On the other hand I hate to lose information. Perhaps there is a solution that would be reasonable. Perhaps the full list could be included as a reference note at the bottom of the article. Or maybe better, perhaps a collapsing section could be provided with the full list, and only list the few people that are actually interesting in their own right outside that list. Would something like that seem reasonable? Loren.wilton (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Without any further contributions to this discussion contrary to the above this information should be reinstated. As editors you are destroying information provided by 'the community' with no consensus as to why and, as detailed before, it is better to have too much rather than too little until this debate can be concluded in a satisfactory fashion either way. The information began to be verified as required and since then there has been no agreement by the 'community' as to whether or not it should be here - returning to the policy surely that too much is better than too little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.46.92 (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You should also note that this only constitutes 'edit-warring' if you agree that the information should not have been there in the first place. Considering this is not agreed and 'too much is better than too little', the edit-warring is the responsibility of those removing the information, not adding it. As an academic I'd be grateful if you could quote your academic rationale for removing this information from an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.141.46.92 (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You should finally note that the "edit-warring" was between myself and the other editor, being a different individual to the one quoted above and complaining about 'conspiracy'. Wikipedia's inherent flaw is in its record of IP addresses - something an IT engineer will be able to inform you is unable to block simple unplugs and replugs of an internet router. This issue aside you should consider the recently made statements and replace the information post haste.

I agree that the material had begun to be referenced, and that certainly helps the care in its favour. From that point on (around December, 2007), I personally wasn't involved in any removal of the CCF information, for the reasons you provide (it was being referenced, and it provided information, etc.) I do still have a lingering idea that it results in an article that is slightly unbalanced in the extent to which it concentrates upon the CCF, though that is an argument in favour of expanding the rest, rather than removing the CCF material.

In terms of the edit warring and IP address problems, the matter would be made easier if people registered, though of course this isn't a requirement. However, it would certainly help matters and avoid confiusion. I assume we do all want to work together, which would make registering a good move (it would help prevent confusions). As far as the the use of "edit-warring" is concerned, the use of the term was accurate (see WP:EW) where the first paragraph states "Edit warring occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert content edits to a page or subject area. Such hostile behavior is prohibited, and considered a breach of Wikiquette. Since it is an attempt to win a content dispute through brute force, edit warring undermines the consensus-building process that underlies the ideal wiki collaborative spirit.", which described what was happening. The section WP:EW#What is edit warring? gives some more information. I hope that clears up that matter.

We have yet to hear from the people who have persisted in removing the information, and this absence means that I think we can soon move to just removing the page-protection and re-add the material, as I consider those who want to remove the material have been given adequate time in which to argue the case against its addition. I do think that if the rest of the article could be fleshed out a bit, that would help matters considerably. It would be helpful if a greater attention is given to providing appropriate references, as this will help prevent the information being tagged or removed by others.

If no such references exist, can I suggest the following possible course of action? Although I did not attend the school, I attended a similar kind of one, though a long time ago. It had a school magazine, and nowadays, there is a website. If it were possible to get someone else to write a brief history of the CCF and take steps to try to place it either in the school magazine or the website (possibly better on the website), then this would certainly go a long way to satisfying the people who concentrate on everything being referenced (it will certainly need this if the article ever goes to GA or FA status review.) Perhaps if the CCF were approached, some of its members could work together to produce the materal that could be added to the website and then used in the references if needed? I don't know the situation, and so I don't know how feasible this would be. I do think, however, that it would be a generally useful move, and not just for the purpose of wikipedia. However, it is just an idea, a suggestion.

I hope you can see what my own position is on this now, and that I am not in favour of removing the information now that it is being referenced. However, I do disagree with the edit-warring, and wanted people to calmly discuss the issue to try to resolve the dispute. If those who want the information removed, however, fail to engage in this process, then I see no reason whatsoever why the information should not be re-included. Any comments? DDStretch (talk) 10:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As some extra information, I include the following:

I note that the editor mostly concerned with removing the information has done many edits since the call to discuss the issue was announced, and the user must surely have the article on their watch list. Otherwise, why would they know to remove the information (sometimes very quickly after it had been added).
The word "trivial" or a related term was often used to provide a rationale for the material's removal. If one reviews WP:TRIVIAL, one can see that it does not really discuss this issue, and so it seems not to apply here.
The word "Notable" is sometimes used, and has been used in previous discussions on this talk page. The argument is that the list is not notable in some way. However, reviewing WP:NOTABLE, one can see that this concerns entire articles, and not parts of articles. Indeed, the section called Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content explicitly states "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles (with the exception of lists of people(footnote 10)). The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines; instead, article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections." Footnote 10 leads us to the following material in Notability (People): "Several articles contain or stand alone as lists of people - for instance, usually an article on a college includes or links to a list of notable alumni. Such lists are not intended to contain everyone (e.g. not all people who ever graduated from the school). Instead, inclusion on the list should be determined by the criteria above. Because of this, "notable" is assumed, and that word (or similar, such as "famous," "noted," "prominent," etc.) should not be included in the title of the list article. See list naming conventions." The "criteria above" seems to refer to the establishment of the notability of people. This indicates that care should be given in the lists of people added, and perhaps some indication of any specially notable work each person did should be provided with the name. This backs up the idea of having additional verification to call upon, which I mentioned in my previous message. However, in this case, an instant removal may not be the best way forward: instead an indication that this sectuion needs to be improved should suffice for a while. I think this can resolve the outstanding issues.

Does that help at all? DDStretch (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(exdent) On my position on the issue. In terms of edit warring, i apologise for my part in this, but did not fully appreciate it as what it was: i rather thought we had established a consensus that the information should not be added and that removing it would be legitimate.

In now discussing the matter again: i believe that, even though referenced, the material is trivial and unencyclopaedic: that is, not important enough within the context of the article to merit being there. My basis for this is that the CCF section at the school is just one extra-curricular activity of (from the rest of the article and the school's own literature) a whole wealth of extra-curricular activities. While it could be argued (and, i believe, has before) that this is an argument for expanding those sections instead of reducing the CCF one, i feel this misses the point, as the weighting of the article is not the major concern but the nature of the information. In my view a list of staff would be a lot more relevant, but that even this would pretty much constitute unencyclopaedic information (and i believe the general consensus at the schools WikiProject are that such staff lists are indeed not worthy of inclusion in schools articles, but instead notable teachers listed, as the King's article does presently).

I believe the section about the CCF's awards and achievements definitely is notable, however, and that there would be fairly easily available sources in local press which could be used. This bit should probably also be rendered into prose, which i might attempt if there are no objections.

Regarding the reference to WP:TRIVIA: i believe this is relevant to at least some of my views, as the material is (while clearly not "a list of miscellaneous facts" seeing as the facts relate to one another) a list of information while also (imo) falling beneath the threshold of notability (which, incidentally, is also not used as a direct invocation of WP:N because, as you rightly point out, this concerns whole articles). There's not really one policy that sums it up succinctly, but my general perception is that the list is of too narrow scope to be worthy of encyclopaedic inclusion. Thanks, tomasz. 12:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see, there appears to be two people interested in retaining this information, myself and another IP user, and an editor, tomasz, who wants to remove it. As the other IP user has stated, surely too much information is better than too little, some of which was beginning to be referenced. Although the CCF is one of many extra-curricular activities at King's, as an ex-member of both the school and the CCF, I can assure you that it is one of, if not the most prominent activity in the School. For that reason alone, it should have a detailed entry here on Wikipedia within the King's article. I have also already stated that the Section Commanders are considered senior pupils and so in terms of the school, are certainly 'notable' people. I'm not entirely sure what tomasz has against the inclusion of this information, however he/she does seem particularly keen to make sure it doesn't make the article. I'm sure tomasz will come back quoting all sorts of Wikipedia rules and regulations with which to hide behind, but due to the prominence of the CCF and it's senior members in King's, this information should be expanded on and allowed to remain. 86.152.199.254 (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Did you have any views about what I suggested in my two messages just before tomasz's? DDStretch (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've read through this dispute, following DDStretch's request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools for outsiders to contribute here, and I find tomasz's position a sensible one. There is of course a lot of similarly unencyclopaedic material here on Wikipedia, but it's still here because no one has challenged it. WP:Notability isn't about notability within the small pond of a school or town or regiment, but in a much wider context. Once a dispute like this arises, we surely need to resolve it according to the policies of Wikipedia, which tomasz understands and refers to above. If a really detailed online history of the school's CCF is worth writing, with names of its significant people and so forth, then perhaps it merits a site of its own which could be linked from an 'External links' section in the Wikipedia article on the school? I don't believe the school's CCF would be notable in its own right and so merit a Wikipedia article of its own, and perhaps that's the touchstone? Xn4 23:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you (DDStretch) have raised some good points. Yes, the article is quite CCF heavy at present as the other activities haven't been expanded upon much. Again though, I would say that this is fairly justifiable since the CCF is probably the most widely attended extra curricular activity at King's. I also don't think this should be used as an excuse to censor the information, just because there is more about the CCF than, say, football or rowing. We should be looking to get people to expand on their other activities, and I think removing this information hardly encourages people to do this.

You also have some good ideas about getting a current CCF member to write an article which could go in the School magazine or on the website. I personally can't help here as I don't have many contacts left at the school now, but by putting the information out here in the public domain, a pupil at the School may just pick up on it and help is out.86.152.199.254 (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, the school is notable and the CCF merits some coverage in the article on it, but proportionate coverage. In my school, the CCF was a weekly activity (for two or three hours on a Tuesday afternoon), plus voluntary expeditions in school holidays and occasional all-night manoeuvres. It certainly wasn't at the heart of the school. Are things different at this school? Xn4 23:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

NB: It's quite wrong to say that the CCF was formed during the First World War. Until the Second World War, the school would have had an Officers Training Corps. During the 1940s, OTCs in British schools were renamed 'Junior Training Corps'. The JTCs were amalgamated into the Combined Cadet Force in April, 1948. Xn4 23:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is about the same at King's, but I think you underestimate the fact that it is, perhaps along with rowing, the most popular and well attended extra curricular activity. I don't feel there is too much detail here at all and that it is entirely proportionate to the importance of the activity within the School. 86.152.199.254 (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just read Loren's points, and I agree with many parts of it. I think a good compromise would be to put the names in a collapsing section or footnote (if that's possible) 86.152.199.254 (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we have a solution to this then that is a compromise? I think it is only fair considering that both arguments are credible and no overriding conclusion has been reached - arguments on both sides simply rely on interpretation of policy and "I THINK that it is not worthwhile" yet the argument for the information does cite the fairly sensible solution that "too much is better than too little". _{(Unsigned comment by 82.10.216.79 at 11:37, 19 April 2008)}

Be a little cautious here. I'm not sure your summary is a completely fair representation of what has gone before, but might tend a bit too far to the inclusionist side. Now, I'm an inclusionist myself, and I take a fairly broad view of what is appropriate material. But as I mentioned above, I'm not at all sure that a bare list of dozens of inherently non-notable people is made particularly notable because it is associated with a perhaps notable organization.

On the other hand, wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and I'm not sure that we have taken full advantage of that, particularly in the area of collapsing boxes. So my suggestion on a compromise experiment follows. Note this is an experiment and may not work out well in practice. But I think it is worth trying and maybe fiddling with a bit to see if it can be made to work. Maybe it can't, and we will have to rip stuff out. But maybe it will work and everyone can be reasonably happy.

Have a section on the club/organization that describes its history/purpose/goals.
In that section have a very small list of heads of the club that it can be argued truely are notable in their own right. I think you could list the first head of the club here.
Follow this list with a collapsing box ideally labeled something like "timeline of the club" that would include the heads of the club with their years, AND the occasional important event in club history. Note: the anual barn dance is not notable, unless the barn burned down during the dance. If you can't find any interesting events but do have the timeline of club heads, then you could title the list to indicate that this is just who-and-when. (Frankly I would consider that boring, and would not be surprised if someone comes along in two months and deletes it as non-notable. So try to add some more interest to the list than just a boring bunch of names and years.)

Loren.wilton (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've come here from the RfC. Of course it is not sensible to add the list of all students holding posts in the CCF. Consider the fact that there are CCF groups in schools that are not notable enough even to have a WP page. It is completely trivial information.Itsmejudith (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Dramatic Productions

Could we please have the recent productions updated. I think there has been a recent production of Animal Farm by Orwell? --A.C. Norman (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

DoE

The DoE link does not work The_Duke_of_Edinburgh's_Award could someone Fix it would but i cant —Preceding unsigned comment added by ARBAY (talk • contribs) 16:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've sorted this out. A.C. Norman (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Dodgy Old Kings Scholars

Candidate OKS's to be included in the list:

Martin Lewis, left the school in 1990, is a well known Financial Journalist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Lewis_(financial_journalist)
Krishna Guha, who was head boy in 1990 is Chief US Economics Correspondent for the FT. http://search.ft.com/search?queryText=krishna+guha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.4.131.140 (talk) 09:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This list seems to have expanded somewhat now. However, some are a bit dodgy, e.g. Ronald Pickup, whose WP page claims him to have attended the Forrest School, and Rob Leslie-Carter, whose page claims a school in Oxford. References please, or I'll delete the questionables... A.C. Norman (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

OKS Wikipedians

OKS who wish to display their affiliation on their userpage may do so using the OKS userbox:

KSC

This user is an
Old King's Scholar

by including {{user KSC}} on their user page. There's even a version on the Latin Wikipedia (Vicipaedia Latina):

KSC

Hic usor apud
scholam regis in Deva discipulus erat.

If you find it helpful, do let me know on my talk page! A.C. Norman (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Cricket

Could we have a paragraph about King's cricket in the Sports section, please? A.C. Norman (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"Controversy" section

This has been removed as "ancient history", presumably by an alumnus, yet we get to know all the marvellous details of what the latest Sixth Form play was? Pathetic. tomasz. 21:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

When it is something that made the news, unlike most of the 'history' on here. It is something people are definately interested in hearing about, so yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.173.230 (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- i dunno if you noticed, but you're actually taking the same position as me, not dissenting. tomasz. 22:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Don't care either way as long as it is balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.173.230 (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  - Uhhh... okay. Might be more useful to try and convince the people that don't agree with you than the people who do, tho. Just sayin'. tomasz. 13:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
    - haha, sorry. Only just realised that. I think I initially misread your post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.173.230 (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's see how long the controversies section stays up. I give it a week. If it is removed we need a valid reason, since it is based on a referenced newspaper article and the facts and quotes provided are referenced. (Surfcrazymonkey (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

References and style

The vast majority of this article seems to read like an advertisement, with the only references coming from the schools website. They are not valid references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.182.185.63 (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Tagged article with "peacock" for the reason above to do with wording/style

Assessment

I am reclassifying this article from B to Start for the Wikiproject Cheshire for many reasons: In August 2007 the following advice was given and since then it has grown longer and deteriorated into promotional material. I don't see any of the comments being heeded.

Brief review comments
I rated the article B-class because (1) it does have some inline references and the school websites listed could be assumed to cover much of the material; and (2) it includes a high proportion of the material that a school article should have. The article is currently only just over the borderline of Start, and could be improved by attending to the following points:
References to the external links should be converted to inline referencing wherever possible. Additional references, preferably including reliable print sources, should be added. This is critical to progressing the article to the next level The lead is too long, and currently contains material which isn't discussed in the main text Main text sections on history and educational standards should be added, with references The bullet point sections should preferably be converted to prose Some prose is overly promotional and should be toned down to be strictly factual The current article is unbalanced, with too much material in some sections, such as the CCF Some material included verges on trivia; such unencyclopedic material should be pruned Additional images would be useful
Espresso Addict 18:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The basic issue is that [1] does not qualify as a reliable- unbiased source. All text supported by this reference- needs to be supported by another. One suspects that the author of one sites is editing the other.

More seriously text has just been cut and pasted from that site to here. That is a copyright and must be removed. I have tagged the first occurrence.

The section relating to the personal lives of members of staff- and current management issues needs to be checked for its legal implications

The Alumni section should be releases as a separate article Alumni of The King's School, Chester.

So to provide a stamp and checklist:

Start -An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and may require further reliable sources. It provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more.

More detailed criteria

The article has a usable amount of good content- but is not comprehensive

The article must satisfy fundamental content policies such as copyright.

Biography sections must satisfy fundamental BLP policies.

The article must provide external sources to establish verifiability.

The article can be weak in many areas.

Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic- lifted from promotional material.

May ramble and include superfluous material

Way forward to a C: Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised.; POVs, copyright violations and original research should be culled.

--ClemRutter (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio - please keep some sections

When looking at this article, I strongly suspect that some sections ARE NOT copyvios. Please keep these sections.

Controversies: This section was blanked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_King%27s_School,_Chester&diff=next&oldid=526343182 . I doubt this was a copyvio, and have added to the discussion on this talk page. Please at least keep this in the history.
Headmaster: A quick Google search on the first phrase shows sources that copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around.
Notable alumni: Not a copyvio. The correct school URL is now http://www.kingschester.co.uk/inspirational-alumni . A quick eyeball comparison shows no copyvio.

Thanks --Arg342 (talk) 12:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Controversies section

I have removed the entire Controversies section as I judge the material to be sourced to insufficiently reliable sources for the nature of the allegations about named living people. Please do not restore it without improved referencing. Refer Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details of this policy. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Disagree - A quick look seems to indicate the sources ARE from reliable UK Newspapers (Liverpool Daily Post, Chester Chronicle). I am from the US, so I don't know the particulars, but offhand, they look like reliable sources to me. Can you explain why they are NOT reliable sources? Are they on a list of sources that are well known for publishing false information, etc?

In any event I am going to ask that this section NOT be removed from the history in light of the copyvio blanking request since this section seems to not be a copyvio at any rate. Thanks --Arg342 (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Local newspapers are not sufficiently reliable sources for negative references about living people. Please refer to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." However, I would agree it is not part of the copyvio problem. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I think there are two separate points here. There is the issue of relying on tabloids, and the issue of relying on local media.

As far as the tabloid issue goes, I agree with the policy that they should not be relied on exclusively. However, there are times they do get the facts right however and in those cases, you will usually find other sources to back them up. In this case, I can't judge whether the newspapers cited are considered tabloids or not. I can tell you that the way I read these particular articles, they did not strike me as sensational in nature, but instead seem factual in nature.

As far as using local press, I must disagree with you vehemently. I also do not see anything in WP:BLPSOURCES or WP:SOURCES that precludes using local media. The local press is often the ONLY source for something not of regional or national interest. Many times national news organizations pick up stories from the local press. Even the smallest newspaper can not print a libelous story lest they be challenged and held for damages in a civil lawsuit. Allow me to give an example. I have done quite a bit of work on the article about the American comedian, Andy Dick. Mr. Dick got in a bit of legal trouble in Huntington, West Virginia, a fairly small city (In the Dick article, see the section Legal Troubles and the paragraph for January 23, 2010). One of the best sources I found in tracking the progress of the court case was a local television outlet, WSAZ (they still have the coverage at their site http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/NEW_INFO_Andy_Dick_Indicted_on_Sexual_Abuse_Charges.html). While their coverage was sensationalized in the headlines used, by reading carefully, it became very clear that they had hard facts in the reporting and it was clearly worth using them as a reliable source for the article. When the criminal legal case wrapped up, the national press reported it the same way the local press did, further validating that the source had been legitimate.

I also do not see the particular local sources used here (Liverpool Daily Post, Chester Chronicle) listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or its archives.

If you still disagree with my point of view here, I would suggest we ask other editors to weigh in on the subject. Thanks for your consideration. --Arg342 (talk) 22:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Assessment (returned from archive)