Talk:Rose Hill School, Alderley

Dormitory Names

I have included as many names of the dormitories as I could remember. I think Nailsworth and Wortley might have been others. And was the girls' dormitory called Leighterton?

Alexandrews (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Names of new owners of the building

(This discussion began on my own talk page; I moved it here so that other readers could contribute their opinions  Chzz  ►  15:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this edit...  Chzz  ►  15:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi again Chzz, I see that you have been tidying up the article page now that it has been submitted, thanks for that. I also notice that you removed the names of the new owners. The reason I wanted to include this information is because I'm sure other former pupils will be interested in writing to them - I for one certainly intend to do so. The name appears all over the planning request documents on the Stroud Local Government website, and also on the Humphrey Cook Associates webpage (the one in the list of references), so would you mind putting it back in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandrews (talk • contribs) 16:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not happy to add back the names; sorry. I appreciate that the information is out there on the web, but my concern is, in revealing the name and address of a couple of people who are not public figures - and we have a "presumption in favour of privacy", and take great care over biographic information about living people. Please look at WP:BLPNAME. That is, however, just my opinion; I can see your counter-argument. If you think you can make a good case for it, please start a discussion on Talk:Rose Hill School (Alderley), and we can see what other people think.,  Chzz  ►  14:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Names - Yes, I looked at the WP:BLPNAME guidelines. They state: " When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." The names of the new owners do not appear in news articles but in publicly accessible official records. The guidelines also state: "Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." As I said, I'm sure a lot of people with connections to the former school (pupils, teachers, etc) would be very interested to know who owns the property now that the school has closed. Alexandrews (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Notified Wikiproject Schools and BLP Noticeboard  Chzz  ►  16:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If the mr and mrs are just private people and bought the house as a private home to live in - I would say adding their names adds nothing of value and that their privacy can and perhaps should be respected here at wikipedia. If a company had bought the house and we added their plans for the buildings future there would be a reason to include the company name, or if perhaps the purchasers have a history connection to the property, for example if they attended the school or their children attended it, but in this case I support not adding the private couples name. Off2riorob (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The names of these individuals would appear to be of interest (actually just potential interest) to only a small number of people. The information is not of general interest or importance, and seeing as it is otherwise readily available to those who would wish to learn it, I would remove it. Wikipedia exists as an encyclopedia and not as convenient repository of information. JohnInDC (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Chzz and Off2riorob. Certainly, their names would be of interest to some people, but I don't believe that including their names adds "significant value" to the article. The article is primarily about the school, not the facility, and I think that the principles of WP:BLP imply extreme caution when identifying the addresses of living people, especially when those people are not notable and incidental to the main topic of the article. I think that reading WP:BLPNAME to mean that names mentioned in public records are fair game for inclusion in articles is rather a stretch, as in most jurisdictions the names of all property owners are public records. Such an interpretation would mean that any homeowner is fair game. Instead, I think we should avoid publicizing their names and address so prominently, but people can always look at the records if they wish, especially since we've so conveniently linked them. Zachlipton (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Chzz removal of the names. The new owners are not notable enough that they want their names in the Wikipedia. The very fact that the press did not find this information of media value bears this out. The fact that deeds are filed at the county hall does not confer notability either. See WP:BLPNAME, WP:NPF, and WP:BLP. --Kudpung (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

JohnInDc wrote:"Wikipedia exists as an encyclopedia and not as convenient repository of information". The Collins World English Dictionary defines "Encyclopedia" as "a book, often in many volumes, containing articles on various topics, often arranged in alphabetical order, dealing either with the whole range of human knowledge or with one particular subject: a medical encyclopedia". This sounds very much like a "repository of information" to me! But I accept the point that the names of the new owners may not be of so much interest to others, so I'm happy for that information to be omitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandrews (talk • contribs) 21:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Concur with removal of names in this instance; not notable; only very limited interest; privacy.SBaker43 (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree the names are not notable per BLP. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Links to maps

(This discussion also began on my own talk page; I moved it here so that other readers could contribute their opinions  Chzz  ►  15:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I added a specific external link to the Google Maps satellite image of the school because the geo-location just takes you to a page of map providers; even then clicking on the Google Maps link there takes you to a standard map, and you then have to click on "Satellite" to get the image that is of rlevance. For less internet-savvy users (which I'm sure will be the case for a lot of the former members of the school), it would be much easier to have a simple one-click link on the Wikipedia article page which would take them to the satellite image of the school and grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandrews (talk • contribs) 16:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I see you've already added the satellite image link; personally, I don't think it should be there (nor the 'bing' one), because we've got tight restrictions over external links, and I think there are too many - but I won't remove it or anything.

Sorry that couldn't be a bit more positive. Best,  Chzz  ►  14:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Links to Map Images - It really does take quite some effort to navigate the web in order to find decent map images of the former school's site, so I think their inclusion is justifiable especially when Wikipedia's policy is not to have lots of images on the article's page. I don't quite understand the objection to including these in the external links - they seem to meet Wikipedia's policy no problem: "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."

Alexandrews (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Notified Wikiproject Schools and External links Noticeboard  Chzz  ►  16:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I also think the EL section is a bit excessive - there is no benefit to a reader to have four different maps of this place. I think a couple of them can be removed without losing anything information. Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw the note at WP:ELN. I also think that links to maps are not ideal external links. If a modern satellite view of the grounds is desirable to alumni, then perhaps the official websites ought to provide it. However, I doubt that our readers—99.9% of whom are not alumni—will benefit from this link, and it is their benefit, not the alumni's benefit, that matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:WhatamIdoing (talk • contribs) 19:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Five maps is just too many. There are also other issues with EL. Friends Reunited? - Wikipedia is not a social networking site. It seems to me that the purpose of this article about a defunct school is for the benefit of its alumni and little else. Kudpung (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I still don't understand the resistance to external links - I thought the purpose of Wikipedia was to provide knowledge and information? Anyway, I have been considering consolidating all the "map" links into a single External Links entry - would people be happier with that? It doesn't help that most online maps currently show the wrong location for the school, making finding its true location on them pretty tricky if you're not in the know... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandrews (talk • contribs) 21:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

We have policies and guidelines that cover almost every eventuality. Please refer to WP:EL and WP:WPSCH/AG. BTW, could editors please remember to sign their posts, thanks. Kudpung (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)