Talk:Royal Grammar School Worcester

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:RGS Worcester)
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Royal Grammar School Worcester was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 4, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
June 15, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
June 21, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
December 7, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article


I've suggested that both the Royal Grammar School and the Alice Ottley School pages should be merged into the RGSAO page, as there is a great deal of duplicated information between the three pages. Petepetepetepete (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

History Section[edit]

As an alumnus, I would like to point out that, during my stay there (1970-77), the school was state-funded and education was provided free of charge. To ignore this episode in the school's history seems somewhat pretentious, particularly so, given that many of the illustrated alumni attended during this era (for instance, Graham Robb, Tim Curtis and Imran Khan were my contemporaries).

Geoff Mortimer

It is not ignored. Please go to the RGSAO page, where a full history can be found. Dewarw (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

UK School System[edit]

Just seems to me to be a little esoteric; being American I'm fairly uninitiated to the English formal school system. Maybe something could be done there?

What, particular, would you like to see? I think to describe the English schoolin system would be beyond the remits of this page. Although perhaps a mention of its place in the system could be mentioned.--Wisden17 14:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


I feel that this page would greatly benefit from having a few photographs of the school on it. I will try to provide these myself perhaps along with the help of Wisden17.

This has now been achieved through my taking a camera into RGS last week. Thanks. --Newton2 14:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


I think it is worth mentioning more about the grange site which is located north of the main RGS site in Worcester. This probably doesn't require its own article and therefore would make a useful contribution to this article. --Newton2 13:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

School Houses[edit]

To tidy up the section on the school houses it may be worth inserting a table which contains the house name, colour (actually as a filled colour cell) and house master or basic info. This would make the article visually more appealing in my opinion and make it easier for people to reference. --Newton2 13:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Recommendation GA to FA[edit]

The previous FAC failed among other because the lead was too short (one sentence). Now it won't make FA for a similar reason: the lead it too long (two huge paragraphs). The essence of the lead is to define the subject (one or two sentences) and then to summarize the article (another two or three sentence paragraph). And I think the Houses section can do with some copy-editing as well. Congratulation with GA! Up for FA. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC).

The school has announced that it will be merging with the Alice Ottley school next door.


Welcome to the schools project. Impressive page and an important school. Victuallers 12:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

RGS Worcester and The Alice Ottley School[edit]

A page has been created for the newly merged RGS Worcester and The Alice Ottley School. 17:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now altered and cut down on the article due to the merger. 18:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

AO Detail[edit]

More details/ photos need to be added to this page about AO. Does anybody know of any? Btline 21:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rgsw.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Rgsw.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been sorted. The wrong template had been put on the image. It now has a fair use rationale as well. Sorry for any wasted time.Btline 17:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There are no past pupils currently, let alone any notable ones![edit]

Please stop putting a list of "Past Pupils" (using the ones from the RGSW page).

No-one has left RGSAO yet! Btline (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

According to every biography not directly sourced from Wikipedia, Vanessa Redgrave attended Queensgate School in South Kensington, followed by the Ballet Rambert School, whatever that is. No mention of AO! Who invented this? (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

Please see the discussion. Btline (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Please help with any other info to be added. Removal of duplicated material, and of course, the old "double redirects!" Thanks, Btline (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


The "nearest lineal descendant" of the monastic school established c.AD 685 is surely King's, not the Grammar (or RGSAO). King's is the one next to the cathedral which leases cathedral buildings, which provides the cathedral choir, and several of whose staff and pupils are members of the cathedral foundation. King's was founded (or re-founded) by Henry VIII in 1541 specifically to replace the monastic school which he abolished. "New school" indeed? BartBassist (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

To do list for RGSAO[edit]

  • Insert more pictures (preferably AO).
  • Include more AO buildings/halls in the text.
  • Complete the list of patrons and past pupils.
  • Remove duplication! Btline (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

More to do[edit]

As a local person with a particular interest in notable schools in Worcestershire, I have just read the entire article with much interest. It has obviously been prepared with much research, and I hesitate to tag it for a couple of fairly innocent minor issues. However, I feel it still reads partly like an essay and that some passages may contain subjective wording that might conflict with Wikipedia's MOS.--Kudpung (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now included some in-line tags. This is in no way intended as a criticism, and should be regarded only as flagging of some places that may be a possible focus for urgent attention. I'd be happy to help with rewriting this article, but I am engaged on one or two aspects of the Worcs project for the moment. See below for further suggestions. However, given the facts and additional info, I could certainly attempt copy editing it into an article that follows the MOS and style for school articles.
  • Reasons for the merger are spread around different sections. RGSZ & AO were two very elite schools in Worcs (I nearly went to RGS in 1960). More background to the real reasons for the merger are needed.
  • In-depth histories of each school are probably outside the scope of this article that is essentially about RGSAO as it is today, after the merger. Although I don't personally advocate creating extra articles willy-nilly, perhaps separate articles about RGS & AO which lead up to their merger, may be a solution to consider. A very brief history of each school could then be included in the RGSAO article with links to the main articles about them.
  • General tone of the article is too familiar - it reads like a magazine article or newspaper feature.
  • There is an imbalance in favour of RGS. A critical reader could get the impression that this article is written by an RGS staff member, student, or alumnus, who regrets the merge with AO.
  • Needs current official FULL title in intro. T only expansion of the acronym is in the redirect notice!
  • Unnecessary Wikilinking of standard nouns.
  • Tuition fees not of encyclopedic interest (could almost be a form of advertising, and is information that is susceptible of getting out of date very quickly.)
  • Comment by A.F.Leach: may be a fact, but it introduces an element of rivalry into an encyclopedic article. It is therefore not neutral, and is disputed. (see comment by BartBassist above).
  • Duplication of mention of crest and new crest to be used.

  • No less than 12 references to Wheeler - in which case, page numbers should preferably be cited, esp. regarding myths and traditions.
  • Too much information in the text on trivia based on things that are almost certain to change once the merger finds its feet (activity groups, school magazines, sports fixtures, etc.)

--Kudpung (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A few comments:
*From September, the school will be re-named to RGS Worcester. There is therefore a danger that all AO material is lost from the page. If a separate AO page is created, this will encourage the removal of material, making the RGS/AO balance even worse; RGS material will remain, as an article on the pre-merger RGS would be difficult with page names. I therefore think that the article should contain all material - perhaps with an AO section, where we can redirect AO searches to.
*The official name of the school is actually as the title, with the abbreviations. Btline (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You already put a redirect, so I agree with your comments. The article does however need some significant restructuring.--Kudpung (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
This article is still looking shoddy in terms of structure and a great deal of superflous content. Attempts to change it are often quickly edited by over-protective editors. Some of the content is useful, but i feel a great deal of it does not belong here. Petepetepetepete (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


Why are the pages for Alice Ottley and Royal Grammar School no longer in existence? Surely the histories of these schools belong on these pages rather than on this one about a school which less than three years old. I feel a far more concise history of the two schools and how the merger came about would be useful, but not the reams of details given here. Also, why is there a list of past pupils, when none of them attended the school as is? Petepetepetepete (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, the section on the house system is bizaarely long - do we really need such a detailed system, of what effectively are aritrary groups into which students are placed? Also, what is with the pictures of the ties? Are they not both the same? I really don't think we need such a detailed history of this, it detracts from the wider quality of the article. Petepetepetepete (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
We have already been there and tried that. It didn't work. All the info on the RGS or AO pages was duplicated on one or more of the other pages. It is better for all the info about all three schools to be on one article. Re the house info. The houses are important traditions of the school. Some of the ex RGS houses are 100 years old this year. To remove the houses would mean that the page would not represent the progression of the school(s). By all means, trim parts down - but info about both origonal schools, and their houses should, in my opinion, be kept. Regards, Btline (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to reproduce my earlier comment: In-depth histories of each school are probably outside the scope of this article that is essentially about RGSAO as it is today, after the merger. Although I don't personally advocate creating extra articles willy-nilly, perhaps separate articles about RGS & AO which lead up to their merger, may be a solution to consider. A very brief history of each school could then be included in the RGSAO article with links to the main articles about them. --Kudpung (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That's all well and good. But there are three problems:

  • There would not be sufficient material for the old school pages, without duplication, which would result in the pages being re-merged;
  • What would you call the old RGS page? Would this page have to be re-named RGS (2009- ) ?
  • There is a risk that AO info would be shafted off this page, and not get seen again.

I would also like to reiterate that we've tried this before, and it DIDN'T work. (i.e. we lost the tee shirt!) There is no point in going back round in a circle. Regards, Btline (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Both schools are notable in their own right, as is the new school. I will get to work on creating seperate articles asap. I'm concerned that there may be something of an agenda in wishing to emphasise the continuitiy and tradition between the historic schools and the school today, but this is unhelpful. Petepetepetepete (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but you have been warned. They probably won't last. Btline (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

we'll see... it has to be better than the current situation. The list of patrons to a school which was formed in 2007 includes Queen Victoria. Petepetepetepete (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal Feb 2011[edit]

I have not been privvy to previous discussion about the merger of this school and this article, but it is clear to me that as things stand there is some sorting out to do here.

  1. There are separate articles about the same (see below) school: this article (RGS Worcester) and also the one at Royal Grammar School Worcester.
  2. Despite the separate articles, the discussion page is common to both: the talk page at Talk:Royal Grammar School Worcester is just a redirect to here.

This separation of articles seems to have come about because of a merger between this school and another, as if the new combined school was unrelated to the original. But that is not how it generally works: when a company absorbs another it is not wound up and restarted, it just gets bigger. I see no evidence that this is an exception: the school's current website shows past pupils going back before the merger which clearly indicates that it is a continuation of the same school that it was before. Furthermore, the school's website calls itself both RGS Worcester and Royal Grammar School Worcester. Separate articles is both confusing and aparrently wrong. I propose to merge the contents of this article back into Royal Grammar School Worcester and turn this into a redirect.

RichardOSmith (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

As no objections have been received, I am going ahead with the merge. RichardOSmith (talk) 08:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Done. RichardOSmith (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk page history[edit]

Since February 2008 this page has been a redirect to Talk:RGS Worcester and that page consequently contained discussion about both articles. I have merged the content to here; to see update info during that time you need to look at that page's history. If this becomes a problem then an admin can merge the page histories but as it is a discussion page with signed contributions I did not consider it necessary. RichardOSmith (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Out of date![edit]

What has happened to all the new information on this page. The merger of this article (about the original RGS Worcester) with the article about the new school has meant a lot of details are out of date:

  • the house system - completely wrong
  • alumini - misses all the ex-AO pupils
  • buildings - misses the ex-AO buildings

I support the merging of the articles but can someone tidy this up please? A *lot* of effort was done on my part a few years ago to get the article up to date and it has been completely undone! Regards, Btline (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Grammar School[edit]

Why no mention of its time as a, partly state funded, grammar school? I think it was one from the 40s to 1974. My father was there in the late 40s - early 50s. RBlockhead (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)