Talk:Reigate School

Assessment

This is a page with references and masses of content. It is not a stub. But it is an article in two halves- the first part is a C, put then there are poorly referenced and unreference sections which are written in the language of a prospectus- not encyclopedic tone - as the reference is a dead link I haven't been able to check for copyright violation. I assess it as a Start. --ClemRutter (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi ClemRutter, this article was in a terrible state and I've removed everything — none of the sources work (except the motto reference to school's homepage, Get information about schools page and the reference to the home page of Reigate College. And like you said, poorly referenced and unreferenced sections which are written in the language of a prospectus- not encyclopedic tone. There were external links in the text when there shouldn't be -none of these work except a reference to the homepage of The Harlequin Theatre & Cinema which doesn't reference the given text in the article, and a link to a satellite view of the school on Google Maps which is unnecessary. The Headmaster and Leadership section reference doesn't work and is redundant to listing the head in the infobox — we also don't list the deputy head teacher. The uniform section had an external link to school unform online where you can order uniform and ending reference doesn't work. This section was also excessive and against the school article guidelines.

So after removing all of this which was added by the same editor in June 2015 and May 2016 (whose contributions are to this article only), we are now left with a clean slate. I have downgraded the assessment to stub and added a stub tag in the article. I wanted to add something to the article or at least something about it becoming an academy, but I'm having difficulty finding news sources for this school. I was wondering if you might be able to find something, maybe this article has to be redirected to locality? Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Steven (Editor): Hi- fortunately in a case like this you don't need to scour the local rags; what ever terms you use to Google do seem to draw a blank or point you at the neighbouring private school. The approach is to use the Ofsted Reports of the previous school- here is a link: [1]. Over the years they have changed in format, |the early ones give a description of the school and locality- and the later ones are more formulaic but are published under an open government license- so we can legally copy. There has been no recent inspection- due to this being classed as an outstanding school. When it comes to the wire- they only inspect what HMG asks them to inspect so while useful they don't present the full picture, but is gives us a lot of clues. The GIAS site also has valid information. This tells us that it is part of the Greensands Academies Trust-again worthy of a small section- or it being the container article for a redirection. I also now tend to look on the official website for the policies that the schools are obliged to have- particularly the section on Curriculum intent- which gives data on the schools organisation. and then reference back to a line in an ofsted report- when it actually arrives! I apologise for any rambling. ClemRutter (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion re: school age parameters

The following discussion has been copied from a user talk page.

You seem to be making a lot of edits changing school infobox age coverage from one format to another, with edit summaries like Replaced redundant years taught with grades and grades label. When and where was that agreed to be considered redundant? Thks Fob.schools (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

That's right, because grades and grades label provides the same functionality as years taught, hence a redundant parameter. This is in line with other schools around the world and per MOS:INFOBOX. Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

So it hasnt been agreed anywhere? Is that right? Fob.schools (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

That parameter has only been used on around 20 odd articles and will be removed from the template, whereas grades is used on 21,000+ and grades label on 2,000+. The grades label is there to override Grades to a different name relevant to that country such as Years. Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

So can you confirm that it has NOT been agreed anywhere? Fob.schools (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Given your failure to provide any evidence that this has been agreed somewhere, I have reverted this edit. Your edit summary was entirely disingenuous, as is your contention on this page that only 8 articles use this. I have checked 2 local authorities and just about all use the format you deleted. You need to stop suggesting otherwise in your edit summaries and in talkpage discussions. Fob.schools (talk) 07:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted your disruptive edit to the Reigate School article. As you well know, the WP style manual is not governed by however the DfE - who are only responsible for education in England btw - names its fields. The vast majority of UK school articles use the original style of individual fields for age range. I have no problem about agreeing a change to another format, but it needs to be done by consensus and not by you dreaming up a new style and trying to impose it on the community. If you want yo change then fine, discuss it first. If there are no objections then you can proceed. But going around changing stuff for the sake of changing them because YOU think it seems better is not the way things are done here. If you want to have a discussion about this, then read WP:BRD first. Fob.schools (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

You misread the edit summary, the 8 that you mentioned above is not about lower age and upper age/age range. And to add from what I said from my edit summary: "I already know of Wikipedia's policies and the requirement for consensus. I know the DfE is responsible for education in England, did you know the article this is about is in England? The edit was not "disruptive" at all -changing lower age and upper age parameters to age range is not "disruptive". Both of these parameters mean the same thing, you're using one instead of two, and the infobox documentation gives you the option to use either." Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't misread anything. Changing perfectly valid content cos you prefer a different format is disruptive editing, especially when you leave edit summaries which indicate that the edit is due to a change of policy which your edit is not. Nothing has been agreed anywhere about such a change. It's disruptive and unnecessary change. Fob.schools (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

WP/ANI

I have opened a discussion on WP:ANI relating to Steven (Editor)'s behaviour on this page. Please contribute. Fob.schools (talk) 06:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

This is interesting Steven (Editor) (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

90% of what that article had before was unencyclopaedic and written in a completely unencyclopaedic tone. Additionally there were multiple copyright violations in it. Steven (Editor) was right to remove it. The article contents violation WP:NOTDIR, WP:COPYVIO, WP:EL among others. Canterbury Tail talk 12:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

So this version has lots of non-copy vio and poss some some copy-vio. So how do I know which isnt and which is? Fob.schools (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)