Jump to content

Talk:Reigate Grammar School

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

Fair use rationale for Image:RGS-logo-bi-level-1200.jpg

[edit]

Image:RGS-logo-bi-level-1200.jpg 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic sections

[edit]

I must question whether the list of heads of school acctually adds to the article. Indeed, does it not contravene child protection laws to list the 2007 heads of school without their consent, as they would be under 18? Notably, however, currently, the 2007 entry is wrong.

Additionally, there seems to be a blank section entitled the Pilgrim. Might it be a good idea to either add to this section or delete it altogether? 79.67.184.92 19:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the headmasters of the school adds to the article. One would argue why does the location of the school add to the argument or the number of pupils, school colours? Any information on the school should be listed here, and all relevant information certainly adds to this WikiArticle. The subject of Child Protection Laws has absolutely nothing to do with the list of headmasters and is the only irrelevant piece of information here! The Pilgrim is a magazine published each year by RGS containing the school's achievements and such. I shall see about adding it. Johnxsmith (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the school wesite. It is not a blog. It is an encyclopaedia article which should draw its material from published secondary sources. Unless we have published sources about the school magazine it is not notable. Unless a list of headmasters is verifiable by reliable sources it does not belong here.--Charles (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reference was to "heads of school", not "headmasters": Different thing altogether. The section has long gone, anyway for thye reasons anon suggested. Bagunceiro (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dogging section

[edit]

I believe that this section is both noteworthy and newsworthy. Is there any reason why it shouldn't be included in the article? MurphiaMan 15:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It makes perfect sense to include it to me. Not only did it make several national newspapers, but it would be important to know for both those with a casual interest and prospective parents. It's more relevant than many other sections in this article. Turkeyphant 22:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important that this section is retained and vandalism is reverted. 81.100.164.49 16:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeocrash : I too think that it is important to keep this information, wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia not an advertisement for the school 81.139.199.34 16:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is still an ongoing issue in the newspapers and has provoked much discussion in the UK as to schools' role outside of lessons and how much Facebook snooping is acceptable. The school has already been shown to try to censor this information at other places, so it's even more important to keep a record of this here. Turkeyphant 13:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this section removed? 195.194.86.103 (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PorgeHR : The related issue hardly seems worth a mention; it was a mild prank blown out of proportion and had barely anything to do with the actual school ( I was there at the time).

the school were the one's who blew it out of all proportions i believe that makes it to do with them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.137.195 (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section is being repeatedly removed despite the fact that there seems to be a consensus that it is relevant. I think that removing it requires more justification than simply saying that it is "unencyclopedic". It has been mentioned previously that this page reads like an advert for the school and I do not think that pruning away content that shows the school in anything less than a positive light helps. The dogging suspensions made national news and prompted a wider discussion about school's jurisdiction over content that pupils publish in their own time. Perhaps before removing the section again, it should be discussed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.189.138 (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The content was removed (and I have again removed it per WP:BURDEN) for quite legitimate reasons. The only source on it is the Daily Mail. We do not use the Daily Mail for a source here. Even if BURDEN is met, it still fails the pillar policy WP:NOT. Unless or until reliable sourcing can be provided it should stay out without question. If reliable sources can be provided here that show that this is more than just a news story, a discussion can ensure here about whether it meets NOTNEWS and school article guidelines. Until there are sources there is nothing to talk about. No one here cares about anyone else's opinion of how important this is. It must be shown through the use of reliable sources and the application of Wikipedia policy and guidelines that this content belongs. Please do not waste other editor's time with WP:ILIKEIT or WP:OSE arguements. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.reigategrammar.org/about/history.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MUN

[edit]

An idea what MUN is? Fmph (talk) 08:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


MUN or Model United Nations is a club held internationally and at RGS in which students take on the role of UN delegates and debate important international topics. The program has been proven to broaden a child's mind, can be enthralling and captivating also. Johnxsmith (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is also going back a long way and was clarified at the time. Not very well, actually - I've tidied up the order a bit but the phrase "for the past 16 years" needs to be changed to a non-relative term ("since YYYY") to stop it getting out of date. I don't know when it started so can't do that. Bagunceiro (talk) 20:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Reigate Grammar School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Reigate Grammar 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) 14:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public School?

[edit]

@2A02:C7F:6C11:1000:5011:65D4:F118:C9C9: You MUST engage in discussion - that is the way Wikipedia works. Also you should take note of wp:3RR.

Your contention is synthesis. Defend it through discussion and consensus or desist.

I will give you an opening statement to try to refute: Tatler is a fashion and gossip rag. Its schools section has no serious credibility. See [1] for some views. Bagunceiro (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bagunceiro, thank you for your input. Your opening 'statement' is no such thing - it is an opinion. The vituperative opprobrium of parents disappointed that their own favoured educational establishments do not make the cut does not render Tatler an unreliable source. The same thread you have linked to includes parents supportive of the publication. A schools guide, like any such guide, is not required to be comprehensive - selectivity does not equate to inherent unreliability.
Personal dislike of a source does not render it unreliable. A great many people dislike and consequently belittle the credibility of mainstream publications such as The Guardian or The Telegraph because they do not agree with their respective editorial lines. This does not mean that these publications are not subject to rigorous editorial standards.
Moreover, as previously stated, the source linked provides direct support for the edit made. This is not a piece of original research as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines. No surmise is required - the page states that RGS is a 'public school'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:6C11:1000:ED62:48CD:B7D6:61ED (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it doesn't. It categorises Reigate as 'Public' which although close, is still synthesis. Fob.schools (talk) 06:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The categorisation requires no 'synthesis', no surmise, no assumption on the part of the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:6C11:1000:149D:30EE:8CB0:75C6 (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to build a consensus for making this edit: It is clear that you do not have one as yet. By the way, are the anonymous 2A02:C7F:6C11:1000:ED62:48CD:B7D6:61ED and 2A02:C7F:6C11:1000:149D:30EE:8CB0:75C6 the same person? It would help if you would create an account - it's free and painless. Bagunceiro (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And additionally there is plenty of scope for adding something into the text about it if necessary. But it is insufficiently referenced for the lede or the infobox Fob.schools (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My 2c - if you can't agree whether it's a public school or an independent school, just leave it out - it probably isn't important in the grand scheme of things. I think the community is getting tired of infobox feuds. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reliable source calling it a public school without synthesis, and Tatler magazine does not get to define what is a British public school. As far as I can see the school itself does not call itself a public school and, in spite of its age, it does not fit the popular image of such an institution. Independent grammar school seems more apt and the present description is fine.Charles (talk) 21:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Owner and operator of the school

[edit]

It would be welcome if someone could add the owner and operator of the school. The current version only mentions the 17th century founder, the current headmaster and the international engagements. As it is a private fee-paying school, some private institution or individual should be running the school economically, including the responsibility for the conversion of the school to its current fee-paying status, and that surely is not an irrelevant information. -- 2A02:3032:201:8B73:5248:58E0:4A0D:6E81 (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reigate_Grammar_School&oldid=1233051200"