Jump to content

Talk:Crompton House Church of England Academy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

may be a B Victuallers 16:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalise the school's wiki entry with erroneous information. According to the British place name gazeteer Shaw and High Crompton are located in the county of Lancashire. The other control authorities associated with Shaw and High Crompton are Unitary Authority area i.e. council (Oldham), Police Area (Greater Manchester), Health Authority (West Pennine), and Lieutenancy area i.e Magistrates/judicial juristiction (Greater Manchester).

Crompton House's Location

[edit]

Please can members kindly make themselves aware about some geographical factors concerning Crompton House. Whilst educational, this is intended to inform members with the greatest of respect.

Since the 1974 local government reforms, Shaw and Crompton lies within the metropolitan borough of Oldham (NOTE - Oldham is a seperate town, which also lies within the borough).

There is some confusion about this as the borough is also named after the town (unlike the metropolitan borough of Tameside where the principal town of Ashton lies).

With regard to suggestions that a borough is an authority - this is wrong. Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council is of course an authority, whereas the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham is an undisputable and very much working definable geographical area.

Crompton House's LEA (local educational Authority), like that of all schools in Shaw and Crompton, is Oldham LEA. Crompton House is listed in the Oldham Chronicle as Oldham's best school. It has and Oldham area (OL2) postcode. It's member of parliament is Oldham East and Saddleworth MP Phil Woolas. Within this understanding, Crompton House is not in Oldham (as in the town), nor Lancashire (a county that lies some many miles away), but within the metropolitan borough of Oldham boundary, in Greater Manchester.

Note there is no affilation with Lancashire.

With regards to Lancashire vs Greater Manchester, Shaw and Crompton is served by GMPTE (Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive), Greater Manchester police, and if one obtains an Oldham or Greater Manchester A to Z, one would find Shaw and Crompton and Crompton House in it.

Lancashire is in modern times, concerned with Lancastrian towns such as Preston, Lancaster, Blackpool etc.

These factors present themselves as factual, and whilst the vast majority of Wikipedia editors adhere to this, please can those who wish to have geographical boundaries changed or reverted to pre-1974 times, please do so via parliamentary means and not discredit the content and purpose of Wikipedia.

If you wish to dispute/respond/agree with my comments please feel free on this page. Many thanks Jhamez84 01:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]



The above information is erroneous

Oldham metropolitan Borough and Greater Manchester are not places - they are authorities. OMB is a unitary authority and Shaw and Crompton falls under the juristiction of OMB. However, as the British Place names gazeteer makes very clear towns are located in counties. The location of Shaw and cromption is in the county of Lancashire. If the geographic information continues to be vandalised please correct it. The geographic information can be verified here:

http://www.abcounties.co.uk/newgaz/index.htm


Jhamez84 01:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC) says... This is clearly a dispute which requires a third party or a democratic process. I will request it via the proper channels.[reply]

During this time, please can any annoymous editors join wikipedia via normal means, and go through the Sandbox and wikipedia tutorials before making any edits which may not have neutral point of view.

However, I see that the individual concerned does not have a member name, nor are they adding their content via the correct Wikipedia formatting processes. I would further add at this point, that there is no Wikipedia page on a so called British place name gazeteer.... which appears to be a poorly constructed website with an agenda of reverting back to historic/traditional counties.

Within that logic, I would argue that England remains part of the Roman Empire, just because I have an agenda of promoting it, and/or it once was part of it.

I request third party mediation at this point. Thank you.



National Archives

I suggest the plaintiff should visit his town hall and request guidelines on what constitutes a formal geographic address. Formal addresses are not supposed to reference unitary or control authorities because they often change. Prior to the introduction of postcodes it was common to include the mail town as part of the address for practical purposes. I suggest editors (registered or otherwise) desist from entering factual errors into the Wiki database. Since the plaintiff refuses to accept a gazeteer as proof that Shaw is located in Lancashire, I will instead refer interested parties to the National Archives, a government maintained site:

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/nra/searches/sidocs.asp?LR=758

While there are no records specifically on Crompton House, there are numerous records on other organizations in Shaw and Crompton. The location in both these cases is given as either "Shaw, Lancashire" or "Crompton, Lancashire". Mentions of Oldham Metropolitan Borough are omitted.


Jhamez84 02:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC) says.... with regard to this, please can members also visit the following for consideration:[reply]

I argue that with a progressive understanding of geography, and the evolutionary nature of conurbations, Shaw and Crompton lie within Greater Manchester and the met. borough of Oldham as do the above unbiased websites. I hope this aids this process.

Further to this, when I receive a copy of the Lancashire Evening Chronicle or the Lancashire Evening News through my door, and am greeted by my Lancashire police constable, and vote for a Lancashire member of parliament, and pay tax to the Lancashire county council, and use Lancashire county public transport, and have any connection with the people from the likes of Fleetwood, Ribble and Clitheroe as opposed to Oldham, Tameside and Rochdale, I will then of course admit that I live in Shaw and Crompton, Lancashire. Thank you


Wiki global consistency


I would like to point out that most of the aforementioned sites are not offical government ones (the plaintiff refused to accept the gazeteer site as proof). Secondly, the government sites which are mentioned are not specifically designed to show geographic information. They cover services which are provided within the various authorities (since Lancashire breaks down into many authorities this is natural). I would like to point out that the dispute is about the geographic location of the school, not which authority it falls under. Giving unitary authorites as geographic locations is confusing (especially for people who live far away from the area and particularly global users who may have no idea where these places are).

In keeping location information consistent with other countries (and historic locations from the same area) I request that locations are put in a purely geographic context, and since most countries use the county system I think that should be the system used here. If the OMB boundaries are redrawn this will mean changes to all affected location information. The geographic county system is more widely known, more accessible to people not familiar with the area, and more robust to future changes which the government is forever undertaking.

If you take encyclopeadias as a guide for wiki, I can assure you that you would never find a unitary authority given as a geographic location. Most likely it would give the county or a compass bearing (i.e. North-West England) or sometimes a district such as 'Greater Manchester' if the district is globally recognized.

Minor edit war

[edit]

I have now edited this article in line with the official naming conventions

Please keep all further discussion on location conventions on the Talk:Shaw and Crompton page from now on to keep the thread easy to follow. Aquilina 11:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And Also... (24th March 2006)

Furthermore, there is an unregistered user constantly removing or reverting mentions of Oldham in the main article. That Crompton House is in Shaw and Crompton in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham is firstly resolved and undisputable. The reverter in question has been warned, and also blocked on several occations, but is now using multiple (non-static dynamic IP rolling) IP addresses. This is prohibitted on Wikipedia, and I urge all members to be mindful of the editor in question, watch their edits, and tag them appropriately as a sock puppet. Jhamez84 16:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Quit your whining over my IP numbers will you. I haev alreday explained that ISP uses dynamic IP allocation and I have no control over what number I get.

81.131.68.146 01:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Shaw and Crompton Geography Resolution

[edit]

Please do not use the talk page for purposes of character attacks. This page is a public page and will have much interest from school children - please respect this.

I haev alreday explained the wikipedia position on multiple accounts, vandalism, and other such things.

However, it appears that the edit war has now calmed somewhat, and the geography of Shaw and Crompton decieded. For those interested, I found the exact Wikipedia policy on town and place naming in Britain and can be found here. According to this, following encycolpedic standards (yes the encyclopedia Britanica uses this method!), broad and accepted consensus, and legal positioning, modern Metropolitan boroughs and counties stand as the foremost system which one should use (and quite rightfully so in my opinion) and thus all British location based articles should reflect this. Historic counties from the old system should be placed as a secondary location and with appropriate context for historical interest purposes.

A note is (this is according to the conventions; I am not being stubborn), modern metropolitan boroughs must not be placed secondary to the "ceremonial" or older county systems in any article.

Please can all past, present and future editors become familiar with this piece of Wiki policy and ammend the main article as necessary and when necessary. Please leave this part of the discussion up as a permenant reminder to all. Thank you for your co-operation Jhamez84 21:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Vandalism by wiki editor

There has been a disagreement over the presentation of the related geography. It was noted that the previous version showed bias against the way most people view the natural geography of the country so a more balanced version was drawn up and agreed upon. However, this has been repeatedly vandalised by Jhamez84 so please correct any adjustments he makes to the geographical information.

Thankyou,

213.122.74.210 20:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's four of us editing this page and you're the only one reverting to that version, so I don't know who you agreed that version with...

Also; if you disagree with parts of an edit, edit those particular parts - do not blanket revert. The way you are currently reverting, you are also putting back in corrected spelling mistakes and taking out links included since "your" version. Please edit with more care. Blanket reversions are far more disruptive than the "vandalism" you (and you alone) allege Jhamez84 is carrying out. Aquilina 21:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


With regards to myself being a well known vandal, I think a little frustration is shining through from 213.122.74.210. I am a respectable and registered editor of Wikipedia, who has the best interests of the articles at heart and am striving to protect the pages which I feel require it.
I do not make the rules, I am just adhering to them, and if members think otherwise then again, please refer to the Wikipedia policy on naming locations. If you want it again, please visit this link [1]!!!! Again, this policy stipulates how a location is to be presented in a Wikipedia article, according to encyclopedic standards, legal positioning and broad and accepted consensus.
Shaw and Crompton is in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham in Greater Manchester. Nothing more, nothing less. It is fact, and truly stunning how anyone can so consitently and stubbornly deny this!!!
213.122.74.210 is clearly becoming increasingly frustrated with having been defeated for want of a better word. I think that to imply I am a known vandal is a dirty and baseless trick. I want to make it explicitly clear that I do not mean any disrespect to 213.122.74.210,and there is no shame in him learning and adhering to the Wikipedia policy and I truly wish him every success on this website, but I am really not his friend, and certainly have desires to keep being provoked by him into response. I will however, continue to protect pages from nonsensical edits like a machine! Furthermore, I want to add that other unconnected members are very much disappointed with 213.122.74.210 edits and attitude and his edits to british snooker players articles (yes members can trace those) have also been classed as vandalism and removed by other members. That I am a known vandal is a nonsensical and very pathetic conjecture and simply indicates the content of ones own character much more clearly.
This page will recieve interest from school children. I urge all members therefore not to make personal character attacks, it is not the right website for such a thing. A disagreement over the known location of Crompton House is a petty one, but most importantly, is a resolved one. I truly no longer desire to keep writing and counter-writing in response to this matter.
I trust members will make their own minds up as to what constitutes vandalism and a vandal, and aid swiftly in editing out contributions of an unacceptable nature. I want to thank those involved who have supported me, and who I will in turn support. Please (PLEASE!) let this be the end of this matter. Jhamez84 23:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Snooker players

I have contributed many facts to the snooker pages over the last year. The two recent corrections I made was the statement that "Stephen hendry is the greatest player of all time". I changed it to "one of the best players of all time". Since Joe Davis has won more world championships, and Steve Davis has won more pro-titles it is inappropriate for him to be referred to in this manner. Many people consider Ronnie O'Sullivan to be the greatest player of all time.

The other change was the erroneous information that Stephen Hendry had won 72 pro titles. His titles have been well documented elsewhere and anyone can verify it is in fact 68.

These are two further examples of the 'vandalism' I have perpetrated on wiki. The fact that the snooker changes are still in force and unchallenged proves that the people who generally maintain the snooker pages don't mind at all about the corrections.

213.122.128.186 23:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you're writing this on the correct talk page? ~~ Peteb16 19:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with this page

[edit]

This page reads like a prospectus for the school - and violates at least one point of WP:NOT, namely Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advertising. I'll come back and cut out all the unnecessary information that has just been taken from the school website if I have to, namely all the lists of things (subjects, staff, etc) which don't contribute to the article meaningfully, but I'd prefer an editor with some knowledge of this school do so. Thanks. QmunkE 17:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I'll have a look and see what I can do, hopefully it wont cause conflict. ~~ Peteb16 23:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it's a bad thing that a lot of it is like a prospectus. I think it could be a useful resource for a parent deciding whether to apply here for example. There's a heck of a lot of POV though, and completely useless information - not to mention the appalling grammar. I've just had a crack at it though, so please feel free to edit it further and/or remove anything. M A Mason 17:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit I was a bit quick to agree to this and found myself wondering what was left in the article that wasn't encyclopedic. I decided today that timetables weren't encylopedic, and probably what you meant by useless information. They're also liable to change every year. Someone also submitted information regarding a teacher being on maternity leave; personal information which shouldn't appear on the internet, never mind an encyclopedic article. People submitting to this article seem to get carried away very easily, but as long as it's kept in check, I don't think there's much wrong with the article as it stands (without the POV). I would like to the article padded out more though, information here about significant events the school has been involved in (the stuff that floods the page with Wikilinks) are great. This is encylopedic and would of course also appear in the prospectus so, yes, it can't really be a bad thing. ~~ Peteb16 19:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Oldham

[edit]

Without starting an edit war, I'd like to stress that this school is not in Oldham, it is in Shaw and Crompton. Therefore it doesn't belong in a category entitled 'Schools in Oldham'. Granted the school falls under Oldham LEA because Shaw and Crompton is in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, however that isn't what the category is called or refers to. Please can we keep the category as it currently stands off this article to prevent a factual error and confusion from it? ~~ Peteb16 19:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Oldham

[edit]

Crompton house is in the borough of Oldham, as included in the schools address http://www.crompton-house.oldham.sch.uk/Contact/Contact.htm so it is correct to say the school is in Oldham

That depends on what exactly the category refers to. If it refers to the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham, then yes the category belongs there. If it refers to the town of Oldham, then the category has no place there. It is misleading at best. I have to agree that Crompton House shouldn't belong in that category, though it does seem to contain schools like Saddleworth which are in the borough but not the town. The link provided in the category itself directs the reader to the town. I think whoever created that category didn't fully think it through. I suggest we a) Don't include Crompton House in that category, or b) recommend that the category be changed since it is clearly wrong. Any thoughts? M A Mason 18:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A category for all of the schools in the Metropolitan Borough area would be a helpful addition to Wikipedia, but not while it states that they're all in Oldham as I believe this was the intent (there were more schools that had been placed under that category including Royton and Crompton School and Crompton Primary School but I reverted them back to Greater Manchester). So I'll go for 'b)', ~~ Peteb16 18:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the category intended for contemporary borough boundaries? Jhamez84 19:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The category simply states that the schools in the list are in Oldham. No mention of the borough. ~~ Peteb16 19:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a look here, it looks like it is intended to mean the borough (I wish they'd called it Peninneside Metropolitan Borough!). Looks like the standard being rolled out for categorisation. Jhamez84 22:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm the person originally responsible for the move. As User:Jhamez84 points out I refer you to the here. What I have been trying to do is to create a standardised category structure across Greater Manchester. As I explained at the WikiProject, whilst working on articles in Manchester, I came to the conclusion that the categorisation was inconsistent and a mess. Some articles appeared under Category:Manchester others appeared under Category:Greater Manchester, others that should have appeared under a Greater Manchester categorisation didnt at all, articles that belonged in other Metropolitan boroughs appeared under Manchester, etc, etc,etc.
Since the creation of the WikiProject, I decided that it might be useful to tidy up categorisation across the Greater Manchester area and standardise all areas on a similar/the same structure. This, thus creates a kind of grid structure that divides articles up vertically by area and horizontally by topic. I meant the Category to apply to both Oldham and the whole Metropolitan Borough, I was possibly a bit sloppy linking to the wrong article. I would be greatful if anyone else would like to give feedback at the WikiProject.Pit-yacker 00:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me you took something sloppy and made it sloppier then. Why should it apply both to Oldham AND the borough? At the moment I stand firmly by Peteb16's edits because a borough category should be called "Oldham Metropolitan Borough" to differnetiate it from the town of Oldham which one would logically assume a category simply called 'Oldham' would refer too. All you are doing is introducing incoherence into the article as the editors above have noted. Before you make further changes of this nature to the article you should run them by the regular editors first in the discussion area. 88.104.105.74 20:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that I first asked for feedback at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Greater_Manchester in early April. Thus far only two comments have been received there. I think it would be helpful if further discussion took place there as it seems to me to be a more appropriate place, rather than having it hidden away in an article talk page.
The decision to go for "Oldham" rather than "Oldham Metropolitan Borough" or "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" was for reasons of brevity. The longer title has to appear in each parent category. In the top-level category for Oldham/The Met Borough of Oldham that would mean a long list of categories with "<Subject> in Oldham Metropolitan Borough". I have used such convention across Greater Manchester, so for example, "Schools in Manchester" contains all schools in the Manchester City Council area regardless of whether some people might regard X as being a separate place to Manchester.
As I have previously said, I started this "categorisation project" as I was of the opinion that article categorisation could do with tidying up. Manchester was at one point particularly bad, with articles inconsistently categorised and in many cases not categorised at all. For example a school in Manchester might appear in none, one or more of "Schools in Greater Manchester", "Buildings and Structures in Manchester", "Buildings and structures in Greater Manchester", "Manchester", "Greater Manchester", "Schools in England", "Education in England", etc, etc. By coming up with a structured category hierarchy a school in Manchester should only need to appear in "Schools in Manchester" as the said category is a sub-category of all the others. I picked the Metropolitan Boroughs as opposed to other geographical areas as it is a) current b) IMHO pretty undisputable (i.e. no arguments of whether X is in area x or y and c) avoids the over-categorisation that would result from picking towns/villages.
Pit-yacker 02:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can the editors who disagree with the term 'Oldham' as the borough category name please come to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Greater_Manchester#Oldham. I see no reason why the category can't be "Oldham Metropolitan Borough" to make the category disctinct from the 'Oldham' article which is sued to identify the town". The Greater Manchester category isn't shortened to Manchester so why should Oldham Metropolitan Borough be shortened to Oldham? 88.104.44.134 17:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Chbadge2.gif

[edit]

Image:Chbadge2.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) 20:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grenade Incident

[edit]

The version of the grenade incident reported by the school to the press was false. I am a former student who was in the same class as the student in question and know that the student didn't take History, and even if they had would never have begun to consider the possibility of taking in something to contribute to the lesson. They took in the grenade purely because they wanted to prove they had a grenade and to be disruptive in school. It was a First World War grenade though. Several hundred former students would be able to verify this. Unfortunately the school has put a lot of effort into suppressing the incident, so there is no external verification available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.64.120 (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crompton House Church of England 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 14:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crompton_House_Church_of_England_Academy&oldid=1201243724"