Talk:Orley Farm 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.

London Start‑class Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Orley Farm School be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.

Wikipedians in London may be able to help!

The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Concerning the head's dismissal

I have copyedited the text to be more encyclopaedic, removed the actual text of the insult, which can be read in the source and is UNDUE in the article (i.e. unnecessary and serving only to disparage the person concerned), and reduced the sources to ONE good, reliable source, The Telegraph. Adding 12 references for one piece of information is not "well-referenced", it's known as "stacking" and is often used to force unsavoury or non-neutral points-of-view into an article, and is, quite frankly, ridiculous in this case. Is the editor in question actually aware of Wikipedia:Reliable Sources? Because generally the Mirror, Sun, Standard and Daily Mail are very tabloidish and not considered reliable on a lot of subjects, and several of the other ones looked like trash just from their URLs, and indeed Allovernews, NewsHour 24 and Top News Today are just news aggregator websites, so there is no editorial process, and, indeed, they were all picking up the story from the mailonline, so completely pointless. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 03:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section removed

I noticed that the same user who added the very promotional-sounding information on the new buildings also removed the whole "controversy" section in this edit. I'm not sure personally whether it should be restored or not, but it was sourced, and it seems like the motive for its removal was more reputational than encyclopedic... 80.2.240.75 (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the etymology of “Orley”?

Should be byworded. 2A00:23C7:2B13:9001:D026:DB22:D58:636D (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]