User talk:Dahliarose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! -- Lost(talk) 13:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to Key Stage 3

Hello Dahliarose - I thought I'd explain why I had reverted some of the changes you have recently made to the Key Stage 3 entry on Wikipedia. Firstly, while you are right, the terminology 'High School' is not common in the UK, they do exist, and in many cases - like Middle Schools - include part or all of Key Stage 3. For example, in Leicestershire, many of their High Schools take pupils from Year 6 to Year 9. Secondly, ICT is actually entitled information and communication technology according to the National Curriculum (not communications). Hope that all makes sense - keep editing :o) Tafkam 21:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my page. I have considered adding a comment to the High School page, and then withheld, on the premise that the term as it used in the UK is so confusing. In some places, like Leicestershire, it does cover KS2 and KS3 - normally years 6-9 or similar. In my own LEA in West Sussex, it normally refers to a secondary school that doesn't have Year 7 - because they are still in Middle Schools! To make matters more confusing, some of our High Schools are former 12-16/12-18 schools which have since re-organised, become normal secondaries but retained their name! The same sort of chaos occurs nationwide. IN fact, you could probably write a whole article on the use in the UK - it's just it would only be of interest to a small handful of people! Not sure it's worth it. Tafkam 18:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OFSTED reports and notability

The word "notability" literally means "worthy of being written about". If a school is worthy of being written about in OFSTED reports, which are reliable secondary sources, then that counts towards notability. The way that notability is used at Wikipedia (see WP:N) is as a gauge of whether sufficient sources exist for an article; there is no requirement whatsoever that a topic has to be in any way special, unique, etc. in order for it to be notable. Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 23:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI, you might find those more amenable to your position at WP:SCHOOLS3. Most of the people who support WP:SCHOOLS take a view of "notability" similar to the one above. JYolkowski // talk 15:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St Crispin's School

Hello, I missed the grade II designation, template replaced. Thanks —Dogears 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The spelling of roll is not what's used in this article.roll as in food or rolling down hill is not whats being said,rather like a role in a play or role model. So role is the correct spelling.  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  22:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind!  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  22:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi Dahliarose, my name is Thomas (thomas2503). Sorry if it seemed like I was vandalising the St Crispins School page in January, but I was just removing abuse that had been aimed at the headteacher, because I am a student there and I knew that a teacher was giving an assembly on the school wikipedia page the next day, and I didn't want to see such awful things said about the headteacher shown to the whole school. I haven't got the hang of editing 100% yet, so what I had removed was put in the title in the history. Sorry, just had to clear that up. Thanks.

[edit] School guidelines

Hi.

I read you comments to my suggestion and agree with your concerns right down the line. Please read my response at the talk page. Like everything in life there is a compromise, mine was to lean toward brevity, as I believe that people are more likely to read a short set of instructions. But as you point out international clarity is key. I'm not wed to the specific wording, so a better soulution to combination and brevity will have my support.

Sincerely,

Kevin --Kevin Murray 17:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schools

Hi, PNC = primary notability criterion. --Kevin Murray 14:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Specialist school categories

Dahliarose, I have proposed that categories Humanities colleges in England and Maths and computing colleges in England be renamed to Humanities Colleges in England and Mathematics & Computing Colleges in England respectively. I have suggested this so that they are consistent with the other categories within Category:Specialist schools in England, and with the format used by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) at their Standards website. The other England specialism categories superseded, or are superseding, categories for Buckinghamshire schools, which also followed the suggested format. It is also consistent with the specialism pages, e.g. Mathematics and Computing College. Hopefully, as the creator of these categories, you will agree with this proposal, but of course you can register your opinion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. ~ Scribble Monkey 17:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that you're happy with that. I take your point about the ampersand, though I felt that anything that reduced the name by a couple of characters was probably a good thing. The Buckinghamshire categories are being slowly deleted; in fact it looks like another few just went and we're now down to Sports Colleges and Science Colleges. ~ Scribble Monkey 17:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The Buckinghamshire categories have all gone and their contents have all been placed within England categories. ~ Scribble Monkey 01:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The DfES Standards website has lists by specialism and LEA, so it would be quite easy to put together lists in Wikipedia. ~ Scribble Monkey 09:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about starting something off and doing it in the wrong way, be bold. Try it by county and we'll see if it works. London might have to be done slightly differently, but that would be ok. ~ Scribble Monkey 12:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: School assessments

Understood...I was operating the other way around. That being that the importance ratings are the ones that matter and the quality rating is relative within the project. Based on your description there, I have no problem going ahead and cranking up the importance on Reading to high. PhoenixTwo 15:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Well there's no rush really, I'm considering downgrading some of the recent assessments with the notion that they need to have something else making them important, other than the age. PhoenixTwo 16:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aquinas College, Perth

Hi Dahliarose. I wonder why you said that the article had not been through the GA process? It looks like it was nominated by User:Smbarnzy and reviewed and promoted by User:Phoenix2 [1] I'm just curious as to what was missing? —Moondyne 01:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, i found the same thing, i have reverted your changes, and if you look at Archive 3 on the talk page you will see User:Phoenix2's assesment etc. SMBarnZy 11:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It is a mess. This article has a long history of misguided editors promoting it and being reverted. In this case though, I think it may be OK however. As you said, User:Thewinchester did post a reversion back from GA back to B[2], but 2 minutes later reverted his own edit after apparently reconsidering.[3] I'm guessing that he/she may have based his first edit on the past history of bad faith edits there. I am fairly certain it was an honest mistake though.
As best I can tell, User:Phoenix2 has done a good faith promotion to GA, here and here I'm not aware that Phoenix2 has ever edited the article previously. I was not aware that an article under two different projects needed to be assessed separately. Are you sure? —Moondyne 12:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. —Moondyne 12:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Re your notes on my talk page. I'm not the best person to ask that question of, so i'd strongly suggest that you drop some comments including your suspicions on ratings on the matter into the WikiProject Perth talk page. There's a number of senior users on that project who are aware of the two possible persons you're referring to, and needless to say there were a few editors including myself who spent the better part of a weekend cleaning up some of their messes. thewinchester 12:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
And just to be crystal clear, User:Thewinchester was NOT one of the problematic editors. After re-reading my posts above I would hate for that assumption to be made. The two editors that are being watched are user:Smbarnzy and User:Auroranorth. Also, the discussion page that I think he meant to point you to was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Western Australia (not the Perth one). —Moondyne 00:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Can't really blame you for the confusion - the talk page definitely left the impression that the same was still true only days after the fact. It appears also that User:DanielT5 reverted it to B in early March, and got the editors to send it to GAC, where it was then passed. (Personally, I wouldn't have in its present state, but that's just me.) Orderinchaos78 14:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
(Me either, but I didn't want to be the first one to say that!) —Moondyne 14:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we're pretty much all on the same page with that article and its offshoots. It *can* be made a good article but needs a lot of work (the phrase "work smarter not harder" comes to mind) Orderinchaos78 22:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cruwys Morchard

Hello, Dahliarose. I notice you did a lot of work creating the Cruwys Morchard article last October, and finished up with a really nice little article. I've put a couple of photos onto there, then I found a whole lot of other historical stuff which I've squeezed in. Hope you don't feel that I've spoiled the article! --Euchiasmus 20:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the pictures and expanding the article. I'm the one who has done most of the Cruwys Morchard transcriptions but I didn't want to quote my own work too much! It's much better if someone else quotes it instead!Dahliarose 20:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I found it much easier to research and gather information for this article than for so many others I've worked on - and now I know who to thank for that! I had a fascinating time reading through your painstaking work.
One thing puzzled me - maybe you can supply the answer. If the village name arose from the Cruwys family, dating back to King John's reign, what was the village called in the Domesday book? I evaded the question when writing that sentence in the article. --Euchiasmus 19:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It was simply calle Morchet or Morcet. At the time of Domesday survey the manor was held by one William Capra. See: [4]. Cruwys Morchard is in fact strictly speaking not a village but a parish.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/h/User_talk%7EDahliarose_74b2.html"