Talk:Blenheim High School

Schools Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Surrey Low‑importance

	Surrey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

really needs an infobox. refs are very good. Any pics? Victuallers 14:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Blenheim.gif

Image:Blenheim.gif 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusion controversy

Whether or not this happened is not the issue. Any content must be reliably, independently sourced. See WP:CITE and WP:RS. Unless it can be so sourced it must stay out. TerriersFan (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008 controversy

This section claims it became a national controversy but does not have references to back it up. If it really was a national controversy, there will be news citations available from throughout the country.

If it was not a national controversy, it is very likely non-encyclopedic and should be removed.

Reasons why it might be encyclopedic and worth keeping:

It was in fact a national controversy
It led to changes in national or local laws
It led to non-trivial changes in school policy
It represented a significant change in school policy or enforcement of school policy
As a result of the controversy, something else notable happened. In this case, a simple one-liner that says "In December 2008, 3 students were expelled. As a result insert notable item here happened".

In any case, it's much too big. If it is encyclopedic, it could probably be trimmed to 3-4 sentences. Also, if citations from reliable sources are not provided soon, the entire section should be deleted and not restored until the citations are availbable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the section. The content is controversial, and possibly damaging to the organisation, and must be fully sourced. TerriersFan (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why it has to be sourced, however, because it was kept quiet, it was not reported anywhere. As a fellow student at the school, I know that this event is true and it does back up the reasons given by davidwr. I suggest the article should be put back, however, with something that says it needs to be sourced or something samilar. If I do indeed find a source, I shall put it in. But for the time being, the paragraph should be put back in. Bloons (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was in fact a national controversy

No press or no official reports = not a notable controversy. I should've said "notable national controversy" instead of "national controversy"

It led to changes in national or local laws

No evidence of such changes, or no evidence changes were result of this event

It led to non-trivial changes in school policy

No evidence of such changes, or no evidence changes were result of this event

It represented a significant change in school policy or enforcement of school policy

No evidence of such changes, or no evidence changes were result of this event

As a result of the controversy, something else notable happened. In this case, a simple one-liner that says "In December 2008, 3 students were expelled. As a result insert notable item here happened".

No evidence of an event, or no evidence such an event was a result of this event

Hush-hush events are by definition not encyclopedic. Wait for someone else to publicize this first. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability. Also, consider the reasons this was hushed up - to protect the people from harm that publicity would cause. See Wikipedia:Avoiding harm. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Also we cannot have potentially damaging content hanging about awaiting possible, but unlikely sourcing. TerriersFan (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blenheim High School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corona virus information

Information from the school about this very important subject is absent from its web site and social media accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.4.122 (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]