Talk:Fitzalan High School

Schools Mid‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort 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.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cardiff Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cardiff, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cardiff-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CardiffWikipedia:WikiProject CardiffTemplate:WikiProject CardiffCardiff
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wales Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neutrality? Cleanup?

What are the 'neutrality' and 'clean-up' issues for this article? They're not described here. If they've been resolved shouldn't the POV and cleanup boxes be removed? It seems no better or no worse than most other school articles I've encountered. Sionk (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Agreed, definitely on the neutrality tag. I've removed it, as suggested here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tagging_pages_for_problems#Removing_tags

- anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.6.130.83 (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article expansion

I will attempt to add to this page. As an 'Old Boy' I can contribute to its history -as it appears now everything started in 1982? Someone seems to have missed out fifty odd years before -no matter I'll have a go.Long Ben Every (talk) 16:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I look forward to finding out more!!! But try and remember to cite your sources of the new information. My finger is itching to remove the outdated message box at the head of the article, but you never know, I may replace it with a "more citations needed" box... Sionk (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still work in progress -needs tighter editing -but core historical stuff is there.Long Ben Every (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC) That's about it for the moment. more information may come to light in due course.Long Ben Every (talk) 15:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? Original research?

I've added back the 'additional citations needed' message (it had been removed today). A lot of new information has been added but, generally, the sources aren't identified adequately. Evidently a lot of investigation has been carried out and the enthusiasm has to be applauded. But, for example, if someone needs to go to "Glamorgan Record Office" to verify the information, they need to know which publication contains it. "Ancestry.com" is a general genealogical website with copies of historical records available online - if records have been used, we need to know which ones. Social networking sites - LinkedIn, Friendsreunited, Facebook etc. are generally frowned upon as reliable sources, anyone can self-publish anything on these sites and often there are registration/access difficulties too. Sionk (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes your point is taken about social websites -I'd probably agree. However some of the material referred to is unpublished. As an 'old boy' it is amongst my private papers (sounds grand) but it is primary records. Social website contacts provide addition memories and fact confirmation. I will however try to sharpen the references -particularly the Glamorgan Record Office details. Will that do for now Miss? Long Ben Every (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately if the information is from private papers, unpublished sources, or passing anecdotes on social networking sites etc. it is what Wikipedia calls Original Research, which is not allowed in an encyclopedia. Another passing editor who is less tolerant might take a very dim view and remove it. Personally I have an issue with editors using government records to find out people's birth, marriage, death dates which, again, is usually 'original research'. The date an ex-headteacher dies is not really relevant to the article (though because they're dead it probably can't do them much damage). I'm afraid I may have to keep you back after school for detention ;) Sionk (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take your points, so rather than detention - which is still preferable to the alternative 'beating', I will edit the material accordingly. Allow me a little time to do this - I would be obliged. Long Ben Every (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC) 14:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The recent headteachers listed in the article have also been removed, because they are completely unreferenced and very likely to be still living. There's no evidence they are willing for their career history being published on the internet - see WP:BLP and WP:LISTPEOPLE for guidance. Sionk (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I did not add the information you deleted, I comment as follows, surely (two degrees) Sionk the information on Head Teachers is in the 'public domain'? Why delete them? Any helpful information on the school must be useful? Long Ben Every (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with Howardian High School

Please see Talk:Howardian High School#Relationship with Fitzalan High School. Verbcatcher (talk) 02:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]