Talk:Ysgol Gyfun Garth Olwg
|WikiProject Schools||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Wales||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
No need for this page
As a student at Rhydfelen, I was able to contact school governors, who have assured me that the name Rhydfelen is still the name of the school. The fight is continuing, and as such, it is appropriate that the Rhydfelen article is still the one used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cymru Annibynnol (talk • contribs) 19:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Fortunatley, we, the pupils recieved a letter home today from the Chair of the governing body confirming that the name and everything that goes with it has been changed to Ysgol Gyfun Gartholwg. --Glenny127 (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
meeting to discuss school name
The meeting to discuss the school name on the 25th of march was cancelled due to a protest in the council chambers, so still the name remains Ysgol Gyfun Garth Olwg.
re. meeting to discuss school name
The meeting was adjourned, not cancelled. The motion has been re-scheduled to be heard on April 22nd. It has the backing of both the local AM and former Assembly Education Minister, Jane Davidson, and MP Kim Howells. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goleuni (talk • contribs) 12:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
To the person who keeps insisting on removing mention to John Owen's sex abuse allegations. These allegations are a fact which have been cited with good references, Deleting mention of these as you are doing is vandalism. I wish that it had never happened and I am embarrassed that it has tarnished the school. But the truth is the truth and people have the right to see it. You cannot brush it under the carpet as much as I would like to! Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
re: John Owen
- yes it is back on the article. It is encyclopaedic and fully referenced so it has to stay. The only way it can be removed from the article is if someone can prove (with a news article ect) that it didn't happen, and that's not going to happen! And even then it would still get a mention as it was featured so prominently in the news. Any help in undoing the vandalism is helpful. If you could put this article on your watch list that would be great. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Name change. Moved from an Admins talk page
Dear GED UK. I would like to express my deep unsatisfaction that you have blocked me for "vandalism." It is the user THAT'S IT I'VE HAD ENOUGH that has been vandalising Wikipedia, not me. The user stated above deleted the page Rhydfelen and the page Ysgol Gyfun Rhydfelen and re-directed them to Ysgol Gyfun Garth Olwg. I aprecciate that the school name has been changed, but may I point out that Wikipedia includes pages on names that no longer exist, i.e. the millenium dome and the Liberal party pages. May I also point out that the list of school names in Wales still includes Rhydfelen, and nothen THAT'S IT I'VE HAD ENOUGH is also guilty of it. All I ask is that the page Rhydfelen be kept individual from Garth Olwg. I never have eddited the Garth Olwg page. It would surely make sense that the two pages existed, working together.
Please consider my argument, thank you.
- The name of the school is Ysgol Gyfun Garth Olwg, that should be the name of the article. The controversy about the name should be a section within that article. See WP:NAME for guidance on naming conventions. The two articles you cited are both names for things that no longer exist. Whilst the Dome is physically still there, it is a sustantially different thing, the school isn't. --GedUK 13:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- And you're sayng therefore that other pages should be deleted if what they are talking about does not exist anymore?--Ghostbustters (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- It would have to work like this if you seperated it into 2 articles. Rhydfelen would be all about the old school site and the article would end in 2006. Garth Olwg would only be about the new school site and would start in 2006! You would loose even more connection between the old schools history that way. What you are suggesting is having an article on Rhydfelen at the new school site running alongside the Garth Olwg article. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for explaining it all.The user That's it I've had enough deleted information about the controversy, i.e. council meeting, would that be vandalism? --Ghostbustters (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have actually expanded the section and made the article more neutral to try and make you happy. This [] is what I deleted because it was like a notice board post and better suited to the talk page. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
(editconflict) I have no intention of setting a rule on what should or shouldn't be in the article, i'm just saying how I think it should be. What you should do is come to an agreement on the talk page of the article. If you can't come to an agreement, you should consider WP:Mediation where editors experienced at finding common ground can help you. For now, try and find some common ground. If you both keep accusing each other of vandalism, you'll not get anywhere. Admins like me are here to enforce the consensus if necessary, we really aren't here to try and make it. That's for editors who know the subject. --GedUK 13:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay then, how about I re-write the part about the "controversy"? I was there after all. If you don't like it, you can take it down, only please don't accuse me of vandalism.--Ghostbustters (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- You can re-write what you want. If you don't vandalise it I can't accuse you of vandalism. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Someone keeps deleting the short entry about John Owen and the sex alegations and suicide. These had and still do recieve national coverage! It is a very notable event (more important than the name change I think) So it could easily get a larger write up in the article. We could talk about the allegations, the court cases, the suicide and the "Clywch report" that talks of all the failures of the school and what can be done to protect children in future. I suggest we keep the little sentence about it as it could easily be a lot larger than it is. I have kept it small as not to have a negative page on the school. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
http://www.childcom.org.uk/uploads/publications/70.pdf Go to page 3 (pdf page 5) and read the opening letter.
The fact template on the school badge section. It would be almost impossible for me to get something to prove this. Its not news worthy and wouldn't turn up in an internet search. John Owen gave us a speech on this in school assembly circa 1990. He was a pupil at the school and a teacher there for many years. And that was what he said the school badge symbolises. You however as a current pupil of the school are in a much better position to get hold of something to prove this or prove otherwise! Why not ask some of the senior teachers and find out if it is correct. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 05:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I am assessing this article for WikiProject Schools following a request, I have decided to retain the current rating of C / Mid. The school clearly has a history of controversy with national news coverage, which alone gets it Mid importance. The article however needs a lot of work to improve its rating. First the lead is rather short, it should summaries each section as well as introduce the topic per WP:LEAD. This history section is okay, though the referencing is a bit sparse. The 'Controversy over school name' section needs a lot of work, first I think it should be re-named 'School name' or something similar as it is shorter and gives a better perception of neutrality. However, this change met with opposition from pupils, parents, former pupils, and staff at the school, who wished to retain the old name, Ysgol Gyfun Rhydfelen, in order to preserve the identity of the school and the historical associations that its name had. Who (organisations, people) said this exactly? These are almost weasel words, is not sourced, and the current wording does read a bit like its stating facts. Calling the school Garth Olwg has resulted in many difficulties. The mail of the different sections of the Campus (all called Garth Olwg) continuously gets sent to the wrong building because of their similarities. More importantly, the fire brigade and ambulances go to wrong sections of the Campus in an emergency, putting life at risk. This section really leaves me as a reader with a feeling that the section is not neutral. Again it is unsourced, and 'important' is a peacock term. The school badge section unfortunately also needs to be sourced, a statement from the school or any kind of press coverage online or in print media which states what is said there will do, otherwise it looks like original research. The staff and alumni section is completely unsourced, remember the article should comply with WP:BLP. Finally, the gallery section is nice but galleries are best placed on Wikimedia Commons, where the images already are, and linked to from here. Camaron | Chris (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Is the school name finally sorted. If it is I would like to see the section on the school name tidied up and condensed. It is a bit scruffy and contains lots of info about meetings and such, that are not really that important. I think the rest of the atrticle shows that Rhydfelen and Garth Olwg are the same school(teachers, pupils, ideas) but on different sites and should keep everyone happy. The only other alternative is a Rhydfelen article from 1967 - 2006 and then a Garth Olwg article from 2006 - present. Thatsitivehadenough (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
The name is sorted, i've had a look at the section, and narrowed it down a little, feel free to condense it further. As for the two articles, prehaps a vote of some sort is in order? --Glenny127 (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)