Talk:Bird College/Archive 1

Archive 1

Help

Please Help Someone.

I've noticed that some pages have a number of possible titles and all of these direct to the same article. Eg. Sir Edward Heath, Edward HEath and Rt Hon Edward Heath all direct to to same article. I would like to know how to arrange it so that people will be directed straight to this article just by inputting the words Bird College, as well as using the full title. If anyone gets what I mean and knows how, please help me! Crazy-dancing 01:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I responded to this on your discussion page. Hopefully, that will help. Alternatively, if you'd like me to create the redirects for you, just let me know on my talk page. Douglasmtaylor 02:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My edits today...

Just some notes about my edits to this page today, which were far less than what I did to Doreen Bird.

• - Some spelling mistakes. I recognize (or is it recongise?) that there are difference between American English and British English, but I don't think "indepenant", "equipt", and "prominant" are correct in either variation.  ;) This time I took the additional step of looking them up.
• - Removed some superlative language.
• - Rearranged a little wording.
• - In general, did light copy edit.
• - Drastically, you'll note, reduced the information on Gavin Lee. This is information that either belongs in his article or otherwise split off into the page for the production mentioned.
• - Removed the {{underconstruction}} tag. I had mainly placed this so that Doreen Bird and this didn't get tagged for deletion until the original contributor had time to flesh them out. There's no danger of this any more. Crazy-dancer, because you make many small edits and save a lot, you might consider using the {{inuse}} template and removing it when you're done.

Thanks! Douglasmtaylor 22:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Still need to cite sources for any factual/historical information that are placed. And to me there may still be neutrality issues, particularly considering some of the claims about the school are not sourced. Douglasmtaylor 22:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on this again, have a busy couple of weeks so am gonna have to put on ice for the time being, but the main Doreen Bird article I am happy with as it is and this one is going well, although it's still a work in progress to a certain extent and it will change quite a lot more yet. Can say thanks enough, your work is much appreciated. Crazy-dancing 11:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Merged Comment from Crazy-Dancing upon page move

Created this new page to reflect a change of name for the college described in the article. This is only minor name change at this point in time, but may be significant for future editing of the article. Basically they have gone from being just a dance and theatre college to being a music college as well and whilst this is only new, it will become a major part of the college fabric in the future and so I think it is important to change the article now, to make future editing easier as I will probably be expanding the article to include all the new information as things are clarified and put into place. I have subsequently edited all redirects that were pointed to "Bird College of Dance & Theatre Performance" and they all now direct to this article instead. Crazy-dancing 07:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Today

I starting placing some of the citations inline today. I'll work more on it later. Into The Fray ^T/C 15:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Extras

Have added a couple of new sources and a few relevant comments and just adjusted the wording a few bits and bobs. Removed the link to 'private schools' in the infobox as Bird College is not recognised as a private school, due to the fact that they do not offer mainstream education on the National Curriculum. UK schools are generally only given the name of 'private school' up to secondary education at which point they become colleges of further or higher education. As Birds is has accredited further and higher education courses, I have adjusted the links in the info box to reflect this. Crazy-dancing 17:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! I've had a rough day and am a little burnt at the moment, else I'd start putting the references inline in citations for you, that's great. Thank you so much. Also, other places to look for sources (where I've found some) [news.google.uk.co Google News UK], local newspaper's websites, your local library etc...as I said on my talk page, it's not necessary that they be on the web, just that they're verifiable and that we properly cite them. Into The Fray ^T/C 21:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi there. To everyone who has contributed to getting this article up and running, thanks very much for your help. I hope you don't mind, but I've deleted some of the earlier discussions so that things can start fresh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy-dancing (talk • contribs) 07:12, 13 November 2007

Should have been moved to an archive. See Talk:Bird_College/Archive_1. Paul foord (talk) 04:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

12th November

I've just tweaked a couple of bits, but the article is looking superb now, from what I had started with. Please, if anyone who has helped with this page can point out the major things I need to find sources for that would be much appreciated. Thanks a lot. Crazy-dancing 21:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Peacock Terms

Crazy-Dancing, please look at the Wikipedia guidelines on "peacock terms" (wp:peacock). These guidelines ask Wikipedia contributers to avoid "peacock terms which merely promote the subject of the article without imparting real information". They give examples of these terms, which you use repeatedly in this article, such as 'prestigious', 'renowned', 'well-established', 'world-renowned'. All of the terms that I removed fall into the class of peacock terms, and are therefore against the spirit of the guideline. The wikipedia guideline has suggestions on how to avoid peacock terms, and these briefly suggest that instead of using peacock terms, you should detail the acheivements of the subject, with sources. This would mean using sourced examples instead of fancy-words to 'Show not tell' that Bird College is well-reputed. Not only would adding sources and removing peacock terms make a better article, and one that follows the spirit of the Wikipedia guidelines, but it would give your readers more information. Peacock terms, even those borrowed from outside sources, are not informative, and are open to dispute. ThomasL (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)