Talk:Langley Grammar School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within Schools. Please rate the article.
Current Collaborations:	McGill-Toolen Catholic High School - Newton North High School - Kennet Comprehensive School

Even though my name is mentioned and the logo in question was a satirical logo designed by myself, I would like to categorically state that no one affiliated with Chris Wood Advertising was responsible for this article, this is one thing they can't blame on me.

Ok. I am going to delete the logo. I think that no logo is better than a false one. Also this needs to be wikified. Apupunchau 22:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Can I request that this article is taken down now, because it just encourages people to vandalise it and no one is going to pay attention if it's serious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chriswood87 (talk • contribs).

If you want the article to be deleted, please see the procedure for deletion, to find out how to nominate an article for deletion. Vandalism to an article is, however, never a reason to delete it. It can be protected if necessary, I will be monitoring this article to see if that is necessary. --JoanneB 15:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the user below, commenting on the sources problems. I also visit the school regularly, and know a lot about what goes on there. The information I posted was not from a good source I know, but I got it from there, as I thought saying it came directly to me would not be sufficient. In reality, a lot of information about the school is probably never going to actually be published, so if the stringent laws on sources are upheld, little information is ever going to get onto the page. In its current state, the page isn't particularly useful, and isn't going to grow unless people are allowed to add information. As said, secondary sources have to come from primary sources. The information I added I have heard directly from Miss Clarke, the head, and Mr Adams, the director of sport, who is taking control of the new facilities, on various occasions. I understand that vandalism is a problem, but surely if it is factual information then it should not be deleted unless it is disputed - facts will not be disputed - only edits made to harm reputation and cause damage will. Gkeeling 12:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your frustrations in knowing stuff that you can not enter into the encyclopedia. However, these 'stringent laws on sources' should be upheld, if Wikipedia wants to be a source of any credibility. Yes, secondary sources come from primary sources - but reliable secondary sources can be checked by others, the kind of information that you want to use ("I heard it from Miss Clarke myself) can't be checked by other editors. In some cases this will mean that we can't write much about a topic, which is one of the reasons there has been a long and elaborate discussion about having articles about secondary schools at all (see Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments). Again, frustrating, yes - but I believe (and so do many others) that by sticking to these policies, we'll have a better encyclopedia in the long run. --JoanneB 13:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

But why can't we just add the "This article does not cite its sources" thing? Besides we have two people here who know the school well, so any information added can be cross-checked easily. -- 12.25.90.30 21:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I now see that my response below could have been very confusing at first. While writing it, I moved the sentences around quite a bit and apparently I ended up writing the opposite of what I meant. I just fixed it, I was meaning to stress that in cases where the uncited information could damage a person or institution, the tag is not appropriate. Anyway, that template is always supposed to be temporary measure, as a sign that something should be done about it (either the information should be removed or sources should be added). Also, two or three or even ten people that know the school well would not be the same thing as a decent source, sorry. You don't have to take my word for all this though, there are several places where you could ask for a second opinion. Kind regards, --JoanneB 21:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

But we're not adding information that could damage the school. I admit there was some of that in the old article, but information on the usage of the new buildings is not damaging. Also, when the school does get around to hiring out the sports hall and such, it'll be all over the official website and so the template can be removed. -- 12.25.90.30 21:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JoanneB

Rather than being very counterproductive and removing truthful information, why not add the {{Sources}} template? -- 12.25.90.30 15:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, perhaps I should have explained better why I did that. There are various kinds of information that could harm a person, an organisation or an institution if it is presented while it's not true. That's why, in cases like these such a template should not be used, and the unsourced information should be removed from the article, as was repeated by Jimbo recently. I have deleted this article in the past because it consisted of an unaccaptable amount of opinions rather than facts, damaging the school's reputation. Since that moment I have been watching it, and try to keep it as much in line with Wikipedia's policies (WP:V for instance) as possible. I'm sorry that you don't see that as productive, however, it is our goal to produce a reliable, neutral encyclopedia, not to collect as much information as possible, regardless of its source. --JoanneB 18:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with the deletion of the sarcastic and biased previous article. However, people are now adding 100% factual information, such as the new sports hall and such, and it is being removed. I also agree that no information is preferable to false information, but this is the truth - I visit this school everyday and have done for the past several years. I think it's a shame that Wikipedia is removing information provided by a primary source because no secondary source is available. After all, secondary sources ultimately get their information from primary sources. -- 12.25.90.30 19:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)