Talk:Nottingham High School

Assess

This is a very good page that should be B but gets a "start". Its fairly subjective. Lists are over 30% bwhich is not good. Maybe MId importance due to alumni and age (but Ive made it high). Main problem is references. You need to check you have all alumni.... where is Henry Garnet who presumably went here? When you have used the ref and references tags about 20 or 30 times then we'll give you a B..... this should be a featured page! Victuallers 09:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Henry Garnett is a tricky one - his father Brian was certainly headmaster (from 1565 until possibly as late as 1575) but it's not clear whether Henry actually studied at the school. It is known that he started at Winchester College in 1567, and it seems likely that he would have studied at NHS during his father's tenure until he left for Winchester, but there seems to be no documented evidence of this. -- Nicholas Jackson 22:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC) ... thsats interesting! add it to the article Victuallers 11:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Is it possible that NHS removed any evidence? Victuallers 11:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to add some references... this should be a well rated page ... enough about ties! Victuallers 09:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Well done Nick ... a B. Some more to add. Suggest also "folding" long lists into 2 or 3 cols to make neater Victuallers 22:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, NHS does have quite a complex system of ties, and an article about the school should include that information. Do you have any specific objections?

As to references, there have as far as I know been two books written about the history of the school. The first was essentially an edited version of the PhD thesis of Dr Adam W Thomas, who taught history at the school during the 1950s - there should be a copy in the school library (there were about a dozen in the archives, together with the original typed manuscript, when I was there in the 1980s). The second, published in 1989, was written by Stuart Brocklehurst, a sixth-form pupil at the school, and gives a summary of the contents of Thomas' book and then an account of the subsequent three decades. This latter book is quite readable, informative and well-written (although it pains me slightly to admit it because the author and I never entirely got along). I guess the other obvious source material would be back issues of the Nottinghamian (the school magazine) and the school class lists, the most complete collection of which will be in the school archives. Unfortunately, there are a number of facts in the article for which formal citations either don't exist or would be difficult to find - for example, everybody called the 'Lovell Order' tie the 'grovel order' (even those of us who got them) but I doubt very much that there's any official written record of this. -- Nicholas Jackson 19:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ties and refs

I have added a ref to the adams book which I founbd via Google. Also try "Google Books" as that may include more substantive evidence. Ties do seem to be an interesting aspect. I was only making the point that without refs then stuff may get deleted. For instance it is likely that every school that has included a slang session will get it deleted .... because as you point out, you cannot find a ref and if you can't prove it then ultimately its out. Hope this helps, if not then come back for more. NHS should be in the top UK articles. Oh I noticed that Mellers started the school and then "starred" in DHL's book. Is that a coincidence? Victuallers 21:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd assumed that Dr Thomas' book was a private publication and hence effectively impossible to get hold of, but ABEBooks turned up several second-hand copies so I bought one, along with a pamphlet (an offprint of an article in the Transactions of the Thoroton Society) by Cedric Reynolds on the history of the school buildings. I'll read through both of them and add some proper references to the article. Thanks to Victuallers for inspiring me to hunt down a copy (of both). -- Nicholas Jackson 22:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Has no one got around to making a full page on this? Come on ONs of the world, surely we can do better than this? Does someone have copy of that old history of the school?

--Evil Capitalist 12:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I still go to NHS, so, summing up all my dregs of pride for coopers house, and the school, I might just expand it. --Chachu207 17:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Could whoever removed the Mock Elections section please provide justification for simply deleting it rather than improving the entry in line with Wikipedia guidelines. It's incontrovertible fact, too small to justify its own page, and a valid improvement to this one. Official guidelines follow:

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Lafarge 14:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Just added in a paragraph about the Music School as this seems to have been overlooked.

Officers of the School, in addition to the Prefects' tie, are presented with a separate tie which is black with red stripes bordered by white stripes and has the School Crest on it. This is to distinguish their seniority within the School.

Thanks to John Smith for that. Interesting - I think this a relatively recent change (ie, less than fifteen years' old). Does it have the school crest or the coat of arms, though? They're different things - the crest is a red squirrel holding a duke's coronet (a squirrel sejant gules holding a ducal coronet or) while the coat of arms is the full thing (there used to be a big wooden carving of it hanging above the stage in the assembly (John Player) hall - Nicholas Jackson 13:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The carving is still in the Player Hall and is the full coat of arms however recently (2007), the school has come to using just the shield with the motto at the bottom. This is mostly the case on all the letterheads.Bthebest

I'm a little distressed that the name 'Djanogly' does not appear a single time on the page, it really should be remedied - Chewwy 14:31, 01 June 2006 (UTC)

Nicholas Jackson: The new tie was introduced this year as a result of a new system for the selection of Prefects being introduced.--JohnSmith123456 09:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting - thanks for that. I'm fairly sure the Third XV, Officers and Junior School Centenary ties weren't around when I was there, either (1981-1991). Do we know why the rugby third XV get a special tie all of their own? Re prefects: It used to be the case that sometime during the first year sixth form, about half to two-thirds of the year were appointed house (junior) prefects. At the time, it seemed like an honour, but in retrospect it was primarily a mechanism for getting the older pupils to do various boring tasks (stopping first-fifth formers from loitering indoors during break and lunchtime, showing visitors round, etc) so that the teachers didn't have to. Then sometime during the second year sixth form, about fifteen or twenty of the house prefects were promoted to school (senior) prefects. I gather from the article that now most of the junior prefects are promoted in due course - is this correct? Nicholas Jackson 12:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The Junior School's centenary tie was introduced last year (because of the centenary). Well its all changed recently Prefects wise. In the past just a small number of Assistant Prefects have been appointed in the Autumn term (about 20) and would then be appointed, normally without exception, full Prefects in the Summer term of that same academic year. They would be joined also by 20 other boys who had shown merit since the original appointments and be made Prefects as well leaving a total of 40 Prefects for the following academic year. Now, boys nominate themselves to be Prefects on the agreement that they will participate on duties and indicate a time when they will be available to assist staff. This year about 80 boys nominated themselves (meaning a lot of Prefects!) This occurs in the Autumn term and they begin their duties in the Spring. In the Summer term they are appointed full Prefects to take over the outgoing year. The third XV tie was introduced by Jim Cook and Ken Clayton and funded from the Biology Department, so that boy's at lower levels could receive recognition for their contributions to sport, where other boys receive full colour's. Hope that helps. Any more questions and I would be happy to help! --20:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)JohnSmith123456

Does anyone happen to know which Professor Freeman FRS is an ON? The Royal Society's directory lists two Professors Freeman, Kenneth and Raymond (and also a Dr Matthew Freeman) and it's not clear which of them is the right one. -- Nicholas Jackson 15:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind - the December 1987 Nottinghamian indicates it's Raymond. -- Nicholas Jackson 09:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice that Dr Witcombe is now listed as 'Sir Dennis Trevor Witcombe' in the list of headmasters. Is this true? I can't find any reference to him being knighted (there's no mention of it on the school's website, for example) so unless anyone can provide some sort of citation, I'll remove it. -- Nicholas Jackson 22:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed some changes have been made to the senior staff list. In particular I don't think the Head of Sixth Form should be mentioned because then you can justify adding heads of other years, so i'll remove it unless anyone strongly disagrees. The list of housemasters is probably all right but if anyone objects to it i will support it. -- Bthebest 17:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

When I added the Head of Sixth Form, the list was of the "Senior Management Team", of which he is a member. And, arguably, he is as or more important than other members of staff mentioned on the list (university admissions and so on). But I'll leave it up to you to decide... Dafyd 22:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

I've reverted some recent changes to the section on the school's coat of arms, because I believe them to be incorrect. The school arms are as described in the heraldic blazon in that section ("Ermine, a lozenge argent...") and may not legally be altered without permission from the College of Arms (who ultimately represent the Sovereign in English and Welsh heraldic matters). To redesign it and claim it's ok because it's merely a new 'logo' (which the reverted edits seemed to be suggesting) is on decidedly shaky ground - certainly when the new 'logo' is to all intents and purposes a coat of arms.-- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The School's coat of arms has not changed and the coat of arms are still used on school publications. However, there are occasions when the new logo is used instead, this is not a coat of arms. The suggestion that this is illegal is contentious at best and such legal charges should not be made on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.40.232 (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'm a mathematician, not a lawyer, and any opinions on legality are merely speculations gleaned from a long-term interest in heraldry, and conversation with a couple of friends who know more about this subject than I do.

But, from my lay understanding of the subject, the problem is that in the UK you're not, strictly speaking, allowed to unilaterally make changes to a coat of arms without the permission of the relevant heraldic authority - in England and Wales this is the College of Arms, in Scotland it's the Court of the Lord Lyon. In practice, this sort of behaviour goes completely unchallenged in England and Wales - the High Court of Chivalry has sat once in the last few hundred years, and that was about sixty years ago. (In Scotland, things are treated more strictly: the Lord Lyon is a judge and his pronouncements have legal force, with criminal penalties for those who fail to obey; typically he issues a few judgements a year.)

Things you are allowed to do include: displaying just the shield on its own, displaying just the crest on its own (which is what the design on the Founder's tie is), or applying to the College for a grant of a badge (it's quite possible that the school already has one - you'd have to check the original letters patent to make sure) which may be a simplified design based on the full arms and which may be used in more general circumstances than the full arms themselves.

Now if I understand you correctly, the school's position is that the coat of arms hasn't been altered, but instead a new 'logo' has been designed incorporating elements of the arms themselves. In principle this is ok (and is done all the time by armigerous companies and other organisations), except that the logo currently in use is indistinguishable from a coat of arms, so I'd argue that regardless of the original intention (which I'm happy to accept was well-meant and done in ignorance of the, frankly, obscure technicalities of heraldic law) what the school has in effect done is to redesign the coat of arms. It's a bit of a legal grey area, but I suspect the basic principle is that "if it looks like a coat of arms, then it is, and is therefore subject to the relevant jurisdiction". Not, as mentioned earlier, that this will result in any legal or other sanctions from the College of Arms (although if you were in Scotland then things would be more serious).

I guess my dismay results from the fact that while I was a pupil at the school (1981–1991), certain values were emphasised, including the importance of doing things properly, and having respect for tradition. The way this new logo has been introduced seems to fly somewhat in the face of those values. I'll see if I can come up with a less contentious wording, anyway (although not all of the phrasing was mine anyway). -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thus, it appears that we are discussing a law which has not been used for over 60 years and even then it may still be alright if the School has a badge which neither of us can verify. You also agreee that a logo is acceptable. Thus, I would say that this is a somewhat obscure point. From my own viewpoint, the School still very much shares the values you speak of and tradition is still very much part of the School life in so many ways (e.g. House system, Founder's Day, Speech Day etc). The suggestion that the school does not want to do things properly is again very contentious - such public slurs surely have no place here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.40.232 (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't quite what I said. You're not supposed to redesign a coat of arms - this is not allowed without the permission of the relevant heraldic authority (which ultimately derives from the Crown). You're pretty much guaranteed to get away with it, though (at least in England and Wales, but not Scotland) because the College (unlike Lyon Court) don't enforce this. In fact, if you read Adam Thomas' book on the history of the school, it turns out that the school used the Mellers arms for quite some time without permission, the situation finally being sorted out in the late 1940s when the school applied for a proper grant of its own arms. But the fact that you'll almost certainly get away with it doesn't make it morally ok.

I agree that a logo would be entirely acceptable, except (as is the case here) where the logo is clearly just a coat of arms. If the new logo had been three stylised blackbirds in a red circle, for example, that would have been absolutely fine. But when the 'logo' is a shield, with a motto, containing heraldic charges identical to those on the actual coat of arms, well, at that point you've strayed into heraldic territory and are supposed to follow correct heraldic procedure: a logo that looks like a coat of arms is de facto a coat of arms, regardless of what you choose to call it.

I'd be interested to know if the school has a badge, though. This will be stated on the original letters patent from 1949, which are presumably locked away in a bank vault somewhere. My guess would be that if a badge has been granted, it will involve the three blackbirds from the Mellers arms. These days, a separate grant of a badge will cost about £1000, which sounds a lot but is a tiny fraction of what would be charged by a modern corporate image design consultancy (and will be far more tastefully executed).

In the grand scheme of things, of course, this isn't particularly important, and I think you're reading rather more into my comments than I intended. Certainly, no slur on the school's character was intended (and, to be honest, I can't quite see how you managed to interpret my remarks in that light). The original wording wasn't all due to me, anyway - indeed, on at least a couple of occasions I've reverted much stronger wording introduced by other editors (possibly themselves members of the school). Anyway, bearing in mind that this is supposed to be a neutral encyclopaedia entry and not merely publicity material for the school, are you now happy with the current wording? -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The school has no legal right to use the new 'logo' as no doubt some of the more traditionalist former members of staff would have argued. I'm intrigued to know which current staff-member keeps making changes to the article. Nottmlad (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The original change was by a user named Kerryturner; the school's current director of ICT has the same name. I'm also assuming (from writing style and similarity of comments) that the anonymous editor above is the same person. I think I prefer your wording to mine - it makes it clearer that the new 'logo' contravenes heraldic law. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Reassessed C class

This is a notable school and its article should reflect the quality of its education. Although it includes most of the necessary elements for a complete school article, it clearly needs copyediting to introduce a more encyclopedic tone, and removal of some trivia and long lists. Please address these issues if you can. I might fix it myself, but not until I've finished rewrites of other school articles on my todo list. Kudpung (talk | contribs) at 11:34, 25 June 2010.

Notability

Very little of this text seems notable in any way. School pages suffer from endemic promotional text, text about non-notable teachers and pupils and are often filled with weasel words. I'm going to have a scan through this and remove some parts which may be a little less contentious. If nobody objects soon, I'll have a more thorough edit of it. Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have done this, however I still think a lot of the content is not worthy of note and can be removed. I shall attend to it later if there are no objections. Mtaylor848 (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I object, and have reverted all of your edits. Yes, there's much in there that could certainly do with being pruned, but we should discuss it first. Also, what happened to the image of the school's real coat of arms? Someone seems to have deleted it recently. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

another view

Some confusion here over the meaning of notability. Notability applies to the article as a whole. I cannot believe that anyone thinks a 500 year old school with a number of notable ex students including several people involved in the 1605 Gunpowder plot is not notable. What I think is being discussed is whether the stuff that is written is noteworthy. It is true that "School pages suffer from endemic promotional text, text about non-notable teachers and pupils and are often filled with weasel words".... but IMO this is not one of them/the worst offender. By all means debate a sentence here, an emphasis there, maybe even the occasional half para, but if we are looking for stuff to delete then there are richer and thicker seams of stuff to be deleted. Please discuss! Victuallers (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a load of stuff in this article that could be trimmed or made more concise, and even a fair amount that could probably be cut (the last ten years' Wheeler Cup results, for example). But yesterday's edits were a bit overzealous, and I think we should discuss any major deletions before doing them, not least because it's easier to prune unnecessary material than it is to restore it. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. And the weird stuff about ties?? ... that's surely so geeky that it is noteworthy. Most tie shops would care less about the subject. That is interesting IMO Victuallers (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The section on ties could probably be shortened a bit, but it's an important part of the school's traditions, so I think it should stay. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully the two of you can make this a "Good Article". Find your consensus. The school deserves to have that accolade. Victuallers (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability applies to the article as a whole, yes, but that doesn't mean the content can be anything and everything. Policies such as WP:UNDUE, WP:V and so on come into play. It also doesn't matter if there are other articles in a worse condition. The trimmed version of the article is far better. There is no reason for the whole of the school hymn to be included or for 770 words on prefects, or the individuals who have won the Wheeler Cup for the last 10 years and so on. Quantpole (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

and the consensus/compromise you suggest is? Victuallers (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can add me to the list of editors in favour of a sever pruning. As I mentioned in my post above, if my comments hadn't sparked off some reaction, I was going to come back and do some radical editing (read pruning) myself.--Kudpung (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that those who want to include such material have the burden to show that it should be included. Quantpole (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position: I agree that the article is rather rambling and unfocused, and could do with a severe tidying. I further agree that most of the stuff that's been deleted shouldn't really be in the article, either because it's not very interesting or because it's insufficiently sourced. All I was saying is that it's probably easier to decide what should go, and then delete it, than to delete a load of stuff and decide whether any of it should be put back. Also, I was uneasy about what seemed to be a lone editor dropping in, deleting half the text and then disappearing. But if everyone else thinks we should do the deletion first and then maybe put some carefully chosen bits back, then I guess I'm ok with that.

So, for reference (and hopefully discussion), here's the list of things that have gone:

• The correct coat of arms - this image seems to have been deleted, possibly due to questions over its copyright status, although if that's the reason it's unclear why the incorrect, bastardised version is still there: either both of them are in breach of copyright or neither is. I can scan in a replacement if necessary, although it might be better if someone with more artistic talent than me could prepare a free depiction of the arms instead. It's certainly not ok to have only the incorrect version displayed.
• A section on the Founder's Day service. I think this is a fairly important bit of school history and tradition, although the original version was a bit long and could certainly be trimmed.
• The school hymn. Again, it's a moderately important bit of school tradition, but (a) I'm pretty sure it's not as old as one might expect (I believe it dates back to the middle of the 20th century) and (b) I thought it was dull when I had to sing it, and I still do twenty years later. I won't argue strenuously if someone else wants to put it back, but I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over its omission.
• Information about prefects. There should probably be a short paragraph explaining the appointment and duties of the prefects, and maybe a couple of sentences about how things were done in earlier times (corporal punishment, etc) but I don't think we need a lengthy excerpt from the 1907 Prefects' Minute Book, as interesting as some of it might be.
• Wheeler Cup results. Incomplete, not very interesting, and can probably be dispensed with.
• Ties. Personally, I like the ties section. Yes, it's a bit obscure, and it could certainly be made a lot more concise, but the rather baroque system of ties is a valid part of the school's tradition and identity, and I think there should at least be something written about it. I think we can probably get away with just a sentence for each tie, though: a description and a note about what it represents.
• School expeditions. This doesn't need a section of its own, and in any event it's unlikely the list would ever be complete. Can probably be replaced with a single sentence containing a few representative examples.
• Non-notable old boys. Some of these can probably go. The ones currently deleted are: Professor Christopher Calladine FRS, Professor Raymond Freeman FRS, Professor Thomas Wingate Todd, Professor Martin Humphries FMedSci FSB, Tom Groves, and Sir Douglas Wass GCB. All undoubtedly eminent in their respective fields, but none of them have their own articles, so they should probably be omitted for the moment. Might be better to just comment them out rather than actually deleting them, so that they could be more easily reinstated if they acquire their own articles at some point in the future.

So, on balance, I think I agree with most of the deletions. Really, I just thought it would be easier to do it the other way round, that's all. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I edited the article in good-faith. Personally I think it could be edited further. Mt edits were an attempt to be bold and I only removed things I did not think would be contentious. The winners of a competition played within a school are not notable. Maybe headteachers have an advertising conspiracy and feel the need to inject articles with phrases like 'modern facilities', 'excellent results' and 'friendly ethos' etc. I don't think there is too much on this page that would have consitituted blatent advertising (you wouldn't have to look far to find it however). My issue with this is that someone (presumably from within the school) has seen fit to insert all this text about non-notable trivial events and people. School pages (I'm not trying to start a class-war here but its usually public schools and grammar schools rather than state comprehensives) often have lists of winners or competitions, lists of teachers and former pupils who aren't notable to have an entry of their own and this page seems to suffer from that sort of thing.

It has been stated that 'surely nobody could think a school this old is non-notable'. I don't doubt the notability of the subject matter, but surely equally nobody could think a list of winners of a school competition or a long lists of various ties within the school is notable encyclopeadic content.Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Pruning

Thanks for your input Nicholas. I support every single one of Mtaylor848's edits, he was only doing a perfectly legitimate WP:BRD, and I would have axed a lot more. Anyway, it's stimulated the required discussion, and we can work on cutting that stuff out again and rewriting the prose. Two things spring to mind: How can such a noteworthy school be content with a Wikipedia article that reads like a script for a soap, and why can't editors use for a model one of the many well conceived and written school articles we already have? Here are some examples:

• Malvern College, see also: List of Old Malvernians
• Harrow School
• Hanley Castle High School (really one of the oldest in the country)
• The King's School, Worcester
• Bromsgrove School
• Heathfield School, Wolverley
• Malvern St James
• Eton College

One of them had yards of dirty uniforms and sports kit hanging in the quad until it was severely pruned. Now it's going up for GA.
I've replaced the infobox with the correct template and moved the logo to where it should be. BTW, that logo was not taken from the school website, but we might just get away with it, because the FUR is about right.--Kudpung (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I wasn't arguing against Mtaylor848's edits, I was just a little uncomfortable that they happened rather suddenly and without any real prior discussion, to the extent that looked to me like someone had just appeared out of nowhere, deleted half the article and then disappeared again. (If it had been me, I'd have said "I think we should delete or shorten the following bits, what does everyone reckon?", rather than presenting it as a fait accompli, although I recognise that we are encouraged to "be bold", and I tend to err a little too much on the side of caution.) I happily accept now that he acted in good faith, withdraw my earlier (merely procedural) objections, and applaud him for his motives and efforts. I think we all ultimately want the same thing here -- that this article be improved considerably from its current rather rambling state -- although it might take a little bit of discussion to nail down the exact details.

Regarding the coat of arms, the problem with the current 'logo' isn't just the copyright issue, but that it's the wrong coat of arms and neither the school nor we technically have any right to use them, because it doesn't match the blazon granted by the College of Arms: the blackbirds should be inside a white/silver lozenge, and the main field should be ermine (white with black spots). If at all possible, this article should have a picture of the correct arms instead. From what I understand, the copyright situation with coats of arms is that blazons (the formal description stated in the letters patent) aren't copyright, but that individual graphical depictions of them are, although we can probably make an appropriate non-free-use rationale. Are you sure that copy of the logo hasn't been copied from the school's website? The metadata at File:Nhsnewlogo.jpg specifically says that's where it came from. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The list of masters has to go - none of them are referenced or notable or have Wiki pages, and anyway it's an MOS guideline.--Kudpung (talk) 09:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The list of masters is taken from Appendix 1 of Adam Thomas' 1957 book A History of Nottingham High School, but I agree that it probably isn't essential for the article if we're tidying it up. Would it make more sense, do you think, to have a more detailed "History of Nottingham High School" article into which things like this could go? If so, we could have a short, two or three paragraph historical section in this article, and then link to a more thorough account of the school's nearly five centuries of existence. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think expanding the history is an excellent idea, and by all means base it on Thomas if his book is interesting and provides plenty of detail that adds to the school's notability. If you have a copy, be sure not to quote verbatim, but to paraphrase and acknowledge the source with page numbers in the refs.
It's written somewhere in the Wikipedia policy (I think on the WP:SCHOOLS) pages that lists of staff are not essential and should not be included.

Thomas' book (published in 1957) is pretty thorough (304 pages including 8 appendices), and covers the period from the school's foundation in 1513 until its 440th anniversary in 1953. Thomas himself was head of history at the school during the 1950s, and his book is an expanded form of a PhD thesis he successfully submitted to the University of Nottingham, a typescript copy of which they had (and presumably still have) in the school archives. It's been out of print for years, but second-hand copies seem to be relatively easy to get hold of (mine cost about fifteen quid, I think). A shorter book (by my contemporary Stuart Brocklehurst) was published in 1990. I think the list of headmasters would be ok in a historical article but agree, on reflection, that it shouldn't be in the main school article. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The logo is exactly the same as the one on the website but it was not taken from the website - it was scanned from another source at a much higher resolution than the image on the web site. If there are problems concerning the heraldry, then it must be taken up with the school's public relations department who most likely provided the webmaster with all the elements to use on the site. According to the FUR and the declared source (which is technically wrong anyway) , we can use it, even if it's the wrong one, and the school hasn't objected.--Kudpung (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I feel quite strongly about the coat of arms, and think that we should at least use the correct one (which legally is the school's coat of arms, whatever the school's management might currently think). I can scan in a suitable version and provide a non-free-use rationale if you think that would be ok? -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing about heraldry, but if you feel strongly enough about it, and I'm sure you're right to do so, the course of action would not be to scan and use a different image in the Wikipedia. That decision is not ours to make. All we can do is bring the matter to the notice of the school without getting further involved, and if we must, we don't use any heraldic devices in the article until the matter is cleared up.--Kudpung (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I've failed to explain my point properly - sorry about that. The school has a coat of arms, granted by the College of Arms in 1949, which is still used in some school publications; also a large carved version used to (and presumably still does) hang above the stage in the assembly hall. For promotional purposes they've also recently adopted what they seem to call a 'logo', which is really a simplified version of the shield from the full arms. Leaving aside the question over whether they're allowed to do this kind of redesigning on their own authority (basically, they're not, although the law is almost never enforced in England), and considering just whether we're allowed to use a depiction of the proper arms in an encyclopaedia article about the school, I'd say it's clear that we are.

My understanding of the law pertaining to heraldry is that nobody who isn't a member of the school is allowed to use the school arms in a way that implies that they own them (for example, on a letterhead, etc), nor would anyone be permitted to use them in a defamatory manner, but it's quite ok to use it in a factual context like this, with or without the school's permission. Also, the formal description of the arms (the 'blazon') isn't copyright, and can be quoted in full. A specific depiction of a coat of arms (a painting, for example) can be copyrighted, and the copyright usually rests with the artist or the organisation in question. It would definitely be ok for someone with sufficient artistic talent to prepare their own depiction of the arms, and licence it in a manner acceptable for Wikipedia purposes; it would also, I think, be ok to scan a lowish resolution copy of the school's depiction and use it under the same non-free-use rationale that we use for corporate logos and indeed the school's new 'logo'. I'll see if I can figure out a way to do the former, but I think the latter would be ok too. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, as much as it irks me (and I freely admit that it irks me slightly more than it probably should), this is a pretty minor issue as far as the article rewrite goes, and we can sort out the details later. Let's focus on deciding what the article should be like. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Rewriting

I've been thinking a little bit about what the rewritten article should look like. How about the following?

1. Introduction. One, maybe two paragraphs containing just the most pertinent facts: what sort of school it is, where it is, when it was founded, mention of no more than three alumni (D H Lawrence, maybe Albert Ball, perhaps one of the more prominent current politicians), name of current headmaster, that sort of thing.
2. History. Two paragraphs (maybe three if warranted) about the school's history, plus a link to a separate, more detailed article, when written.
3. Buildings. Maybe a couple of paragraphs about the current layout of the school campus, the buildings and facilities, etc.
4. Academic activities. Curriculum, exam results, typical destination of leavers, etc.
5. Extra-curricular activities. Sport, music, drama, tours and educational field trips, CCF and community service group, etc.
6. Daily life. (Possibly need a better title for this section?) Stuff about day-to-day life at the school: assembly, pastoral tutor system, structure of school day, uniform (including concise description of ties), houses, prefect system, etc.
7. Traditions. Brief section on some of the school's extant traditions: founder's day service, speech day, mention (but not full text) of school hymn, coat of arms, brief mention of major internal competitions (Wheeler cup, house sporting and music competitions, etc).
8. Notable alumni. Only those alumni who have an article of their own. There are enough of these that we don't have to go hunting for others to make up the numbers.

Have I left anything out, or included anything that shouldn't be there? -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you Nicholas. We have a useful check list on our schools project pages at WP:WPSCH/AG#S which might be a help. I'd be happy to work with you on improving this article, but don't hesitate to WP:BOLD and make the changes you suggest - we can always tweak them again later. Alternatively, if your changes are sweeping ones, we can always make a sub page somewhere for working on a much revised article, and publish it when we are ready. In spite of its huge number of registered members, the schools project has been largely inactive for a long time. I've been discussing the possibility of organising a task force to clean up UK schools articles, as I've been doing it practically alone for several months. Would you be interested in helping out? Some examples of reasonably good school articles of different kinds of articles include Malvern College and HCGS both of which which I will shortly be proposing for GAN. --Kudpung (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be disinclined to include a section about the 'day to day' life at a school, this surely can only be of internal interest as can things like 'houses' (which looking across Wikipedia pages seem to be common place amongst independent schools, so a house system can't be particularly unique or notable) and the prefect system. The school hymn again has to be only of internal interest, furthermore if anything other than brief exerts are printed it could be in breach of copyright. Ultimately I agree with the proposals largely, however I would not include a section about 'daily life' and I would keep the section about 'traditions' very brief. Perhaps we could have a rudimentary trim of the page in the meantime, while we argue about the finer points of it. Regards, Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds fine to me (you and the others convinced me) - I now think we should trim whatever we think most needs to go, and if we later decide bits of it should be restored in some form, we can trawl through the page's edit history to recover it. Regarding the daily life and traditions stuff - I agree that whatever we do include should be concise and relevant, but I don't think we should necessarily exclude details that aren't unique to NHS. Obviously any such material shouldn't be allowed to ramble, but I don't think we can seriously get away without mentioning, for example, the names of the houses, the fact that lots of the sixth form are appointed prefects of some form (and what that actually means), and so forth. I don't think that sort of stuff is just of internal interest, whereas things like the Wheeler Cup list clearly shouldn't be in a proper encyclopaedia article. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and remove some parts there seems to be consensus that it should go. Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have cut out non-notable alumni and lists of winners of competitions. Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Potential copyright violation

On the advice of a former pupil (see above) that the hymn dates back to the middle of the twentieth century it has to be assumed that it is not in the public domain. For the time being I am removing it, if it's agreed exerts are warranted then they can be inserted later. Mtaylor848 (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe it only dates back to the middle of the twentieth century for the following reason: the copy glued inside the front cover of my hymn book (which I think I still have somewhere in the attic) had the credit "Duddell–Whitehorn" at the end. I'm assuming here (and I think it's at least halfway reasonable to do so) that the Duddell in question is the same Mr A G Duddell who was head of history at the school during the 1950s. Quoting a couple of lines (or perhaps even an entire verse) would, I'm sure, qualify under "fair use", but copying out the whole thing would be both unnecessary (there are far more relevant and interesting things we can put in this article) and a possible copyright violation. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see no reason why a brief quotation would contravene fair use. Printing large exerts or the whole lot is of course a violation. I see no reason why the hymn cannot be mentioned, very few schools have a hymn of their own so it could be of interest to someone reading this page. While the school having a hymn could be of interest, the hymn itself is not. Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Excessive detail (see tag)

This article has now reached proportions that are inappropriate. Excessive details, such as for example to mention one section, is Prefects. This article can be pruned by 30% and still be a representative Wikipedia article for a school. Please refer to WP:WPSCH/AG and consider reediting as necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The message above was posted nearly two years ago and the rticle is still a rambling mess. It would be nice if some unwanted content could be removed by if those who added it and perhaps those who are concerned that their pestigious school should have an equally correct pfersence on Wikipedia. Pleanty of tips and examples have been posted in the various threads above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

That said, with a bit of effort this article could probably be got up to GA. See HCGS, and Malvern College for examples. I would certainly help out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

A few thoughts:

• The History section is calling out for expansion. At the moment it does not sufficiently inform the reader about the school's 500 year history. Just one example: "[founded] as an act of atonement for his several wrongdoings against the people of Nottingham." What kind of wrongdoings? A careful look through the two books written about the school should be enough (Thomas, Adam W., A History of Nottingham High School, 1513–1953 Nottingham: J. and H. Bell Ltd, 1957; and Brocklehurst, Stuart, Nottingham High School: A Brief History, Nottingham, 1989). The school library surely has copies.
• For a school with some lovely architecture there really needs to be some greater detail about the buildings. Try to get hold of Pevsner's Buildings of England which should have some information on the Main building and Founders hall.
• Other editors are free to disagree with me but in my mind the list of Masters is unnecessarily detailed and its presence is questionable given that few of the names mentioned have their own Wikipedia articles. Take a look at Talk:City of London School/GA1. As it stands the massive table adds little and destroys any sense of "flow" in the article.

I will try to make some substantive edits if I have time and if editors want more advice they are free to leave a message on my Talk page. Cheers Duffit5 (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This all sounds very sensible, and I'll try to find time to help do some work on the article, although I'm rather snowed under with other stuff at the moment. I've got copies of both Thomas' and Brocklehurst's books, and also an off-print of an article called "The Buildings of Nottingham High School" by Cedric Reynolds (Transactions of the Thoroton Society of Nottinghamshire 57 (1953) 33-42) and can try to incorporate some of it. John Knifton recently wrote an updated history (Lauda Finem: The History of Nottingham High School) that was published to celebrate the 500th anniversary this year; I've got a copy of that too, but haven't read it in detail yet.

An alternative solution might be to just keep a short historical overview in the main article, and then have a separate, longer article (such as History of Nottingham High School) into which details like the list of Masters could go. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

To stimulate a little action I am looking at the lead. Firstly, it reads like spam and contains material not included in the article- contrary to WP:MOSINTRO I take a dim view of references that come from a companies advertising material. And some sections without references so I may hit a few of them. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, much of the article does read rather like promotional copy, and there's quite a lot of other unencyclopaedic stuff that could be pruned or deleted. I'll try to find some references for the unsourced historical stuff. -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I have left this ten days and there has been little response. I thought of doing a /sandbox where ideas could be worked up- but then that seems to be avoiding the problem. The text seems like a massive series of copyvios from the school prospectus- and fails to tell the general readers what is normal in a school of this type, and there again fails to show how it differentiates itself from other schools in an authority that has just been heavily hit by OFSTED. The reader coming to find out how it formed the personality of Ed Balls or D H Lawrence will find nothing. I no faith in references provided by the company/ school except for the basic undisputable bricks and mortar facts. So, when I moment I will try and pull the text back to basic principles WP:WPSCH/AG, using the Genghis Khan Nothing is Sacred approach. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Three hours later I have restructured the article opening it up to substantial additions. I culled a lot of excessive detail. The history section says nothing: we need to know, what happened through to 1820, the nineteenth century, up to 1966, and then beyond. Funding is fascination- expansion must tie in with Nottingham s economic forture. We need a new article on Agnes Mellers, and the Harry Djanogly crew. Were they single handedly pumping in money? Harry is prominent in supporting the Tory governments divisive Academy program and one of his kids is in the government. Tread carefully.

When it came to describing the buildings- the section that needs attention is the Grade1 listed Gothic Revival stuff- the list of ancillary new builds really is not notable. I haven't touched ties- maybe a collapsible list, and the prefect system need looking at in a wider context. There remains overlinking: geography is worthless, a link to geography curriculums in UK Schools has merit- similarly school trips. OK- enough for now, I have to feed my reindeer before it gets dark. -- Clem Rutter (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work on this. Do go ahead and radically prune anything that is not relevant, any copyvios, and any exorbitant claims that cannot be reliably sourced. If such content gets put back by new or IP users, I'll semi protect the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks and well done for taking the initiative - at a first glance I think I agree with all the changes you've made so far. I also agree that the history section could do with a bit of expansion, and I'll try to find time to do some work on that in the near future, life and work permitting -- Nicholas Jackson (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Citations

Far too many of the references on this page are unclear, or even unrelated. It isn't usually necessary to have more than one (two at a push) references for each fact. This can be easily resolved.

Also, avoid using smart quotes. See MOS:STRAIGHT. --Sb2001 (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't be afraid to edit

Just keep the article neutral and free of unnecessary detail (see my earlier posts on this page).
Use whatever font is convenient from the keyboard of your computer or mobile device. We have users who are authorised to use special programmes that regularly sweep the ecyclopedia to automatically correct minor errors of punctuation and formatting. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

School roll

Please avoid using exact numbers and cite approximations instead. School rolls are volatile and Wikipedia school articles are not always kept up to date. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Independent not private

This article helps with definitions. "Independent school system in a nutshell". The Good Schools Guide. 9 April 2015. Retrieved 19 May 2019.--ClemRutter (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2019 (UTC)