Talk:Sutton Grammar School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

mid as some alumni. Only start as pictures need tidying. Good start page. Make sure entry is neutral and not an advert. Welcome. Victuallers 14:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


A lot of this page needs to be cleaned up. There is a lot of bad writing (e.g. "used to be the old gym") and a lot of misinformation (the library contains "thousands" of books). Misinformation in particular must be avoided, as it is feasible that this site will be referred to by prospective students. I would suggest that experienced students (upper school, especially sixth formers) and teachers read the article carefully to ensure that everything stated herein is, in fact, the case. Some examples of what I personaly am unsure about:

Voted best for physics in best school's guide? I know there was a venerable award, but i'm not convinced it was from the good school's guide.

10 students for Oxbridge seems very high indeed (more than 12% of the year). was this number a one off? 10 or more suggests 10 is the minimum each year, which i'm sure is not the case.

Do we need to know about how the buildings were built (cavity wall insulations etc)

Boys wishing to join the sixth form require higher grades?

Someone needs to clear up the houses section. It is clear that this section at least was written by a year 7-9 student heavily involved with the house drama at the end of last year, and therefore far too great an emphasis is being put upon that aspect of the house competions. We need more information about the house structure, and less about the particulars of one particular competition.

The year 12 website link at the bottom of the page seems to be malfunctioning. Could it be either fixed or deleted please?


I now personally think that the article is much cleaner and would suggest that the tag be consdiered for removal in the next 6-8 weeks.


Whilst I can see the relevance of many of the edits made on 19 March, much useful information has also been lost. Replacing huge chunks of information with the school song reduces balance and the article becomes overly historic and not current. It'd be great if it could be both. Also, replacing the reference to the Old Suttonians Association with the school rules seems a bit daft. The edits to other sections, also including the CCF are unecessary and remove current and relevant information. I believe that it is in the best interests of Wikipedia users that the changes are in addition and merged sympathetically with the body of work already created and tweaked over the past year or two.


I cannot believe you just deleted all of that hard work. If you felt the earlier work should have been incorporated, why didn't you just insert that in too. If you look at most of the pages of any decent schools, they contain some of the school's history. This page now contains virtually none.

Regarding the Good Schools Guide, yes, Sutton Grammar School was voted best in the country for Physics in 2005. Google it if you really want to find out. And 10 Sixth Formers heading to Oxbridge is not rare at all - in fact, there are frequently more. In my year group, there were around 15, and there's never been less than 10 to my awareness whilst I was at the school (only a few years ago).

You just destroyed a lot of good information and replaced it with (largely) irrelevant lists of information. You could have at least merged the two. Absolute waste of time.


The comments above appear to come from the same IP address as that which made the changes I reverted. I am unsure if the posting is in support of what I did or not or if it is from another user at the same IP address. It mentions merging the information which was my exact point so I presume that it was referring to the changes that had been added recently. There were lots of other crazy deletions - like removing the fact that the school is in the United Kingdom - might not mean much if you are in the UK but this is wikipedia.COM and is this info is important for international users. If you are adding to an article it is down to YOU to preserve the integrity of what has already been done - not for someome else to then come in and clear up after you, this is why I reverted.

The source of the new info appeared to be from the 1999 centenary book 'Keeping Faith'. There were lots of useful additions, but they should have been merged into the current document. Replacing entire sections such as the Old Suttonians is not acceptable. I agree that a list of Headmasters is very relevant and a great addition, but in addition to the existing article and not to replace huge chunks of it. Perhaps the original user would now sympathetically annotate the article.


Ok, now that I've found some spare time, I've sympathetically annotated the article. I have also cleaned up the article a little, such as alligning pictures better, correcting some of the "misinformation" described in the first paragraph above, and fitting things a little more neatly into their relevant headings. Hopefully, the tag will now be considered for removal.

EDIT: Damn, it appears as though Wikipedia will remove most of the pics (those of Mr Ironside, Mr Gibson and the school building) unless copyright details can be obtained with permission, etc etc. Don't have any experience in doing this. Can someone else take charge of it?

Major edit(s)[edit]

Okay, I went through the article... Deleting POV, peacock words, adding citation needed and weasel-word tags. I also removed the 'School Rules' section. I did this because it is completely irrelevant. Who would need to know the school rules? A prospective parent hoping to send their child to the school? All they need do is ring up or go in themselves to get like a booklet or something... And plus, some of the rules, "walk on the left side of corridors with your bags secured so as not to impede anyone and to maintain order..." (Tried as best I could to remember that... I think I got it down roughly). Apologies to the person(s) whom wrote that out - but - that makes the school seem like a Concentration Camp more than a school. May God have mercy on anyone who sends their child there. Article also needs a fair few citations in order to be better. Victualler's mentioned above the need to keep it from seeming like an advertisement... That's doubly important for schools seeing as many students, unaware of Wikipedia policy, edit their own schools' article(s). ScarianTalk 07:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


Would you mind telling me what alleged POVs you deleted? Some of them may not be POVs, but facts that simply need to be referenced.

I have added references for the Good Schools Guide award and the 10+ Oxbridge attendees per year that you called for. Could you please now remove the citation tag at the top of the page.

As for the School Rules, I'm disappointed you took that down. Yes, a prospective parent may be interested in them. No, they may not be able to drop into the school to pick them up; what if they're coming to the UK from another country, as my family did when sending me to SGS? You may personally believe the rules sound harsh, but this is a page of *facts*. Those are the rules. They are written in every pupil's student diary. And some teachers have been known to be particularly uppity about them; it's a traditional school. I'd appreciate you undoing this change.

Also, the School Song (another thing I took the time to type up) was also recently deleted. Why?! This was despite my protest that the 1935 copyright holder, a former Headmaster who wrote the song, is dead! Ridiculous! Fgla86 Talk 08:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

POV: "...breaking Blue House's stranglehold on the Shield. It was one of the closest victories ever witnessed at the school, with only 3 house events clinching the win for Brown."
Okay, maybe this could just be cited: "Over the years boys from the school’s CCF have both served and fought for their country in successive campaigns and wars."
The key-word there is 'thrive'. That's POV, I only removed thrive there. "The CCF continues to thrive..."
That is POV unless you can cite it. "Sutton Grammar School boasts one of the most highly respected cadet forces in the country"
Basically, what I've done is, on the POV edits, I have removed what makes it POV and re-worded it. So that doesn't matter so much. Well done for citing some of those things. But, please do bare in mind that, at the top of this page, someone from the school's wikiproject and someone from the Wikipedia 1.0 project has said to add in more citations. Currently there are too few, but kudos on adding some in. It's a start.
Now, the School rules section, I removed it because it is irrelevant. The average Wikipedian does not want to trawl through 9 paragraph sized bullet points about school rules. Perhaps a shorter version of it would be acceptable? Part of my qualm with it was its length... it's overly long. I understand that you spent time over it and you should be applauded for that, but it's too long.
The School Song: I looked briefly at someones (One of the user's on this discussion page, could've been you) talk page and noticed that the song had been removed by a user for possible copyright breach. That is someone else's decision, not mine. The only possible advice I can give as to that, is to either establish, officially, that you can use the song on the page (With verifiable citations saying so)... or, speak to the user whom removed the song in the first place and ask them how to get the song on the page. Perhaps speaking to the late Headmasters' family as to whom owns the copyright could solve that quandary (I think, whenever someone writes down an original work, the said work automatically becomes their copyright). Please don't hesitate to message me if you have any further questions/comments. ScarianTalk 07:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've sorted out the citations re the CCF. Now all of the requested citations have been filled in.
Yes, it does say at the top of this page that more citations are needed. But that was written when the page was very different; it contained much less information and was much, much more opinionated and informal in tone. Could the tag on the Wikipedia page itself now be removed? After all, it does say 'This article does not cite any references or sources', which isn't true. I think the most important areas you highlighted are now cited (for example, there's no real way of citing things like information on the different buildings).
Apologies for ranting about the School Song being removed - I appreciate it was not you who removed it. I just find it frustrating when things are deleted without warning! I'd prefer if some warning was given or some sort of enquiry was made.
EDIT: I've also now cited some further historical information, other than the parts you flagged up.
Fgla86 Talk 08:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I know mate, don't worry. It is good that you care a lot about the article and I will thus reward you with a barnstar for it :-) If only I knew where to put it... Your I.P. address or your account? Anyway, I shall remove the tags. Btw, certain practically unverifiable things like the school buildings don't need to be cited unless there is some major conflict (Which I doubt there will ever be). So don't worry about that. I'm more thinking about, if for example, it said "The school is rated best in the world by Ofsted". That would need a citation because it can be easily disputed. But I'm sure you already know things like that. And yes, I understand some editor's on Wikipedia will do things suddenly without warning (I'm one of them). But it is considered polite to notify a user if certain material pertaining to something you entered is removed/edited greatly in some manner. Although, some user's don't do that and are considered uncourteous. If you ever need help with anything like that (e.g. another user is giving you stick), please don't hesitate to contact me. Atm, I'm busy editing another school's article... they really are tough work because student's edit them a lot and may not know how to use Wikipedia. Btw, don't forget to PM me so I know where to stick the barnstar award for you :-) Take care. ScarianTalk 08:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for everything, much appreciated. Sorry I wasn't logged in and stealing your code...laziness! Fgla86 08:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Observations after major edit[edit]

I too have been following and sympathetically editing this penis for a while. I agree that the rules and song bit were both unecessary and best removed. 'Small School in a Great War' should be reference enough to justify the 'highly respected' bit for the CCF. Aso, the school motto is 'Keep Faith' and not Floreat Suttona which is traditionally used as a sign-off to particularly notable communications e.g. invitation to attend 1999 Centenary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveo uk (talkcontribs)

All the above is correct. But 'Floreat Suttona', as well as a sign-off, has also been used as a sort of secondary motto in the earlier years of the school. Also, within the last 10 years or so it has crept into use with the resurfacing of the School Song. Fgla86 17:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, seeing as everyone else is being pedantic about the recent updates, I may as well jpin the crowd! 'Sort of seccondary motto' does not mean it is a motto, it may have crept into use, but so have many other things. If you look at the school sheild (de facto coat-of-arms) it says Keep Faith. So ner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveo uk (talkcontribs)
No idea what you guys are talking about. Just edit what needs to be edited and discuss if it needs to be discussed. And Steve, "ner's" annoy people, it shows them your age and eats into your credibility. Leave it in the playground. ScarianTalk 17:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Steveo, perhaps I didn't phrase it as well as I should have. What I mean is, it's the motto used throughout the entire School Song, and is the motto used in all Old Suttonians literature and communications. It's certainly used more than Keep Faith in that sense. Of course, Keep Faith is the motto on the badge, so I put it first. I just thought Floreat Suttona was worth putting on the page. No big deal. Fgla86 20:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - no big deal. I've been adding detail to and reverting valndalism from this one for a while and it's great to have other and more experienced users posting and developing this article. I shall also recind the 'ner', but only because I'm flattered by the age reference!--Steve 13:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Be happy with that one. My brother and sister, whom are playground dweller's, use stronger terms than "ner" when they claim a victory. But yes, we are all supposed to live and work together on Wikipedia in absolute harmony. Whilst this isn't always achievable, we must remember the great proverb that we learn when we are bullied on the playground, "Sticks and stones may broke my bones, but words will never hurt me." They do, and they always will. But that's not the point. ScarianTalk 14:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Btw, perhaps, if the motto dispute hasn't been resolved (I can't remember if I have read ALL of the above discussion), might I suggest that both motto's be used? There is nothing to say that it can't. Plus, I have joined the WikiSchool's Project and subjected myself to reading a policy(I never read policies). It suggest that no irrelevant information be added to the article. E.g. the song and rule's section which, unfortunatly, took Fgla86 a long time to write up. It [the WikiSchool's Project] says not to aim the article at students or prospective students and/or parents etc. but to keep the article completely open so that all of the planet can read and understand the article. ScarianTalk 14:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Notable alumni[edit]

Err, who deleted all but one of the many notable alumni I added?! That took a lot of time and research! An explanation, please! Fgla86 02:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, 'Corvus cornix' did it. I think it may be because some of the names with links didn't in fact have their own Wikipedia article. I've re-added the names, but without the links. This is the kind of thing I find frustrating. Why not just remove the link brackets instead of deleting a whole load of hard work? I've been trying to contribute a lot to this article over the last few weeks but this sort of thing just makes me think about packing it in.Fgla86 02:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
All of your information isn't lost. You can revert it (or I can - just ask me) and then put in 'Why' the student is/was notable. Anyone who doesn't have their own Wikipedia article must have a citation saying why they are notable. But don't worry about it, all things are recorded and they're not gone forever. He shouldn't have removed all of that stuff in the first place without saying something on the discussion page (Remember what I said to you about courtesty). ScarianTalk 05:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
WHO DELETED MY ALUMNI ON JESUS - FOUNDER OF CHRISTIANITY —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


I am re-assessing this article for WikiProject Schools following a request. I am retaining this school as "Start" on the quality scale for now though it is close to "B". To reach "B" this article needs further references from perhaps more sources, trivial information on the school which is of no interest to general readers might need to be cut down, and the copyright issue over images needs to be resolved. Camaron1 | Chris 11:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

RAF membership[edit]

The RAF section retains all male membership? That's not true is it? I'm fairly sure when I was in it, it was mixed gender. Then again, perhaps that's why I left so quickly...


Someone appears to have defaced this page. I fixed some of it myself, but there's a picture I didn't know what to do with. Can anyone else do that one?

One other possible problem is this sentance: "The first Headmaster of the school was Mr E H Hensley, who studied at Cambridge University, where he became a Wrangler by taking a first class degree in Mathematics". Wrangler doesn't sound like the right word, but I don't know what the original word was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

5pm Sunday 16th Sep '07

Hi, Wrangler is the correct word that was originally there (it's Cambridge terminology). I'll try and sort the logo
Fgla86 19:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Sgscrest.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 07:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


The link does not currently work.
John S (a passing past pupil) 5-11-07

December edits[edit]

I basically did a fair bit of updating:

  • Organised 'Notable alumni' into different subsections
  • Uploaded school crest with fair use policy
  • Updated sports section to reflect recent changes and sports now played according to SGS PE website
  • Organised 'History' section into older and more recent history
  • Added mention of Eleven Plus exam
  • Moved text re 'What's the Story: Sporting Glory' publication to 'Sports' section, and removed informal and POV language
  • Updated notable alumni list
  • Some more things I can't remember...

Will be back at some point in the near future to keep updating. Fgla86 (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits to headmaster/deputy intro[edit]

Does anyone else think that the new concise revision, whilst tidy, loses a great deal of useful detail about current/recent heads. I don't like it. Anyone else? Steve (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What detail? I think the only thing removed was the Mrs I Sutherland replaced Mr G Gibson recently. But that's already apparent from the table listing Headmasters and Second Masters, so is a bit superfluous, no? Fgla86 (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The Cowdray Club[edit]

I removed the reference to The Cowdray Club as a club affiliated with the Old Suttonians Association. There's no mention of it at all on the Internet and noone can tell me what it is, so I'm assuming it's defacement of the page. If it does exist and anyone knows what it is, please let me know! Fgla86 (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Cowdray Club[edit]

The Cowdray Club was founded in 2006 and is named after Lord Cowdray who gifted the permanent home of the RAF Club early last century. There is a regular report from the Club in each issue of Athena's Bugle (the journal of the Old Suttonians Association). (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


Who removed all the photos? And why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Headmasters and deputy[edit]

This list was vandalised some time ago and is now incorrect. It has been left this way for a while so I am sure the original idiot takes much glee from this. Will need to refer to the 1999 book to correct entires in full. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveo uk (talkcontribs) 16:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Old Suttonians renaming[edit]

At present there is a discussion relating to the renaming of this category. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at this discussion page. Please note that the discussion is not a majority vote so contributions should be based on Wikipedia policies and independent sources. Cjc13 (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo of building[edit]

Could a pupil or teacher - or indeed anyone who can - take a couple of photos of the school building and upload to Wikimedia Commons; it would be a simple and very useful improvement to the article, especially as the architecture is noteworthy. Ideally take it when the sun is shining on the building, but this is England I know, so don't worry unduly about that! A P Monblat (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Update:No longer needed. I have added a couple myself. But feel free to add more, nevertheless! A P Monblat (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

October 2016 updates[edit]

I've made lots of changes. Could someone please submit the entry to be reassessed now? I think this is warranted for a number of reasons:

  • The School's academic performance has significantly increased lately; the latest league tables place it 13th in the country for GCSE results.
  • The School has been in the media much more lately, particularly in relation to Theresa May's proposed grammar school reforms. Coverage has included references to the School's academic performance, competitiveness in gaining admission and a child genius pupil (Krtin Nithiyanandam) who has recently been making breakthroughs in medical research aged 15/16.
  • Many more references have been included to the School's historical links and importance.
  • Photographs have been added showing the School buildings, some of which are architecturally significant.

Thank you.

--Sgspedia (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. It is close to a B. Need to really get a citation on every paragraph if poss. The wide photo seems a bit odd. Look at the template called "Wide" which will give you a hoz scroll to see pic. Bery good effort. well done Victuallers (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but isn't it already B-class according to this talk page? Also, are you referring to the wide photo of the playing fields? Will work on that and add some more references when I get some more time. Just cleaning up some vandalism for the moment. Thanks again. --Grempletonian (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Victuallers (talk), I have implemented the changes you suggested in terms of editing the wide photo and adding citations. I have also added more information, particularly up-to-date information. Most paragraphs (except a few) now contain citations, with many containing multiple citations. Do you think the entry can now be reassessed? --Grempletonian (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Looking good. Thanks for your work. Most pictures should be left as "thumb" so that readers can choose to click on pictures to see. Not everyone has broadband :-) Also "current" needs to say when. I worry about mentioning names of head boy etc as ephemeral. Next stage is to go for "Good Article" status..... Good luck. Victuallers (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Victuallers (talk)! I'll be sure to make the changes you suggest. I also don't like the mention of names of Head Boy, etc. but someone keeps adding it back in. I'll remove it again. How do we go for 'Good Article' status exactly? Grempletonian (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Changes made :-) Grempletonian (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

October/November vandalism[edit]

Sadly, after all of my updates in October/November, the page was seriously vandalised. I'm no expert on Wikipedia but have put a lot of time and effort into this page over the years. Any idea how to prevent such vandalism in future? I feel like a school Wikipedia article is particularly prone to vandalism like this. Grempletonian (talk) 14:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Put it on your watchlist. I will. Teenagers think its funny. It is very easy to revert hours of vandalism efforts in a second. This usually deters. Where we have silly persistent vandals then we can ban them or protect the page from casual editing - but Wiki prefers to teach good behaviour rather than imposing it. Victuallers (talk) 08:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)