Talk:King Edward VI Camp Hill School for Boys

Separate articles

I wonder if it might be better to have separate articles for the boy's and girl's schools? They are basically separate establishments, and this article seems to be split in half, might just be best as two separate articles? jdan (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest more on the Girls school. At least including the houses properly.

Personally, I am against separate articles, as much of the content, such as about the grounds and facilities, is shared and separate articles would lead to unnecessary duplication. Joemalt1832 (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Girl's School

Could someone in-the-know please have a look at the names of the house captains. They have more than a slight whiff of vandalism about them. Parmesan 14:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC) (my father attended the school).[reply]

Ah, it seems someone in-the-know has dealt with it.Parmesan 02:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religious

The info box on the right has a religious affliation of Christian. I do not know about the girl's school, but in the boy's school there is no set affliation to religion.

there are no prayers or hymns in assembly and all major religions can set up lunch time meeting where other faiths can learn, or members of the faith discuss matters.

There are members of all faiths at this school, so therefore i do not believe the school should have this point in the infobox. does anybody agree or disagree? 82.36.210.205 19:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC) As we are in England the religion of a school is automatically Christian. That does not mean that there must be prayers or the like.[reply]

As far as I'm aware, the schools are run in an entirely secular manner, so yeah, I'd say it shouldn't say Christian. jdan (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jdan, do you attend the school? No. Lol wiki is full of big head always editing what they should not. We are in England and therefore a schools religion is automatically Christian unless, obviously, it is a faith school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.199.60 (talk) 13:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did until about a year ago, thanks. If you have any source for the assertion that all schools in England default to a Christian-leaning curriculum, from a credible source (perhaps the Department for Education would be a good one), please go ahead and give us the link. jdan (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I very much reckon your lying (you sound to stupid to get in) at the girls school the planner/handbook says the assemblies etc are of a christian nature. This does not mean you have to go to a church or be religious but the school celebrates christian festivals. Therefore it is Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.199.60 (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two things - firstly, please consult WP:Civility and WP:Personal before posting in future, and secondly, regarding the content itself, please see WP:Verify, specifically the first line, which states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." This is my objection to the content - I am not particularly adjudicating as to whether it is true or not, I am stating that as it is clearly contentious content (given it is being discussed by editors on the talk page) it should be cited if it is to be included. jdan (talk) 15:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, just thought I'd chuck in my two cents. The school motto is dieu et mon droit - God on my right, and there are various religious festivals including nine lessons and carols and a Christmas service at the local C of E church. Although there are many faiths (which as an agnostic I respect) I think the school can easily be classed as Christian / C of E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.232.187 (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page

It's a joke, much like the rest of wikipedia, we don't need unfunny (but hilarious in the view of the writer) 'jokes' on house captains/mr cookson and the like. Not taking anything away from cookson though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.228.226 (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too much detail!

Do we really need all that stuff about this years sports results? The house championship is decided by myriad events and this level of detail would make the page too big to display. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.138.127 (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC) Agreed - maybe it was added by somebody in the house that won for each result. Joemalt1832 (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Issues

A lot of the girls' school section is written like an advert, e.g. "we look forward to introducing a range of different language activities to complement our current languages provision". Obviously written by one of the teachers. Needs a read-through and a good re-write by someone who knows enough about the school to get it right but who isn't biased. I'm going to fix the bits where incorrect articles are used(eg "our" brightest mathematicians, when the article is supposed to be written in the third person) but can't go through the lot. Anyone want to volunteer?

Right, I've been through the shared and girls' school sections and changed quite a lot, but wasn't sure what to write in place of other sections. Could someone go through and have a look at parts that I've marked with ^{superscript text}? Not sure that I have been completely neutral myself so it probably needs a once-over just to make sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.179.65 (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admissions controversy - neutrality issues

The section on entitled Admissions Controversy is not written in a neutral voice. Even the title isn't neutral - while the admissions policy was changed, calling it a controversy is immediately judgemental. Use of phrases like "brushed aside" are, again, not neutral. Given the reference to Solihull, this reads to me like it was written by someone who'd banked on their child gaining admission under the previous scheme but who, under the new scheme, would not gain admission.

Assuming a neutral voice rewrite, since the change in admissions policy was applied across all the grammar schools in the KE Foundation, does this section even belong in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.194.156 (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pupil's Voice Section

This section is in need of serious revision. Firstly, it is only the boys school it runs in. Secondly, the names of the editors etc do not seem necessary, and have also changed recently. Finally, the list of what is in it seems unnecessary to me. Joemalt1832 (talk) 19:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate content

I have removed content from the article that is inappropriate and reverted its reinstatement. The schools project article guidelines give guidance to what should not be included in a school article. It states clearly that school articles should not include any mention of non-executive teachers or other staff unless properly sourced. The house song information is clearly trivia. I don't have to know a school to recongnise an article in need of attention. Thanks. Bleakcomb (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC) I think you do need to know actually. The house information is fact for this year. I wish people like you would just leave articles like this alone. People at the school edit it and this is how it should be. Please stop interfering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.199.60 (talk) 08:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

94.173.199.60, have you actually read the WikiProject Schools guidance Bleakcomb linked to? If you also take a look at WP:Policy you'll see that the community has a number of guidelines which it adheres to when working on Wikipedia. As I'm sure you can appreciate, such a huge project has to have some rules to ensure everybody is able to contribute effectively and produce a good-quality output. Relevant to this issue, you might like to consider the school article specific guidance Bleakcomb has kindly provided you with a link to. You might also like to consult WP:Consensus and WP:Civility. I think these links should help you to better understand why Bleakcomb has removed the content and how you should proceed from here. jdan (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split

these are clearly twço completely different establishments even if they share the same campus, and to some extent the facilities. they have separate Ofsted URNs, separate governance, and separate websites. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles have now been split by a member of the WP:GOCE. This article still needs cleaning up to remove trivia and redundant information in various sections.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The boys school is now ~~undergoing~~ undergone a major overhaul by the GOCE & WP:WPSCH. While further updates by students, teachers, and others who have first-hand information is most welcome, please keep expansions within WP:WPSCH/AG, and in particular WP:SCFT - any excessive detail or irrelevant trivia will be removed, and new content must be referenced per WP:CITE. Please note the banners on the top of this talk page and if any help is required please ask at WP:WPSCH/H. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:KE VI sch logo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:KE VI sch logo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced alumni

Unsourced alumni have been tagged. Per WP:LISTPEOPLE entries must be confirmed as factual either by a supporting Wikipedia page about the subject or with reliable external sources. Unsourced entries may be removed at any time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on King Edward VI Camp Hill School for Boys. 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) 06:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

KEVI CH logo.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]