Talk:Coal Hill School

message: Is Coal Hill School described liks this in the series, as they are different types of schools? Tim! (talk) 20:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to check, but I believe Coal Hill was a comprehensive rather than a secondary modern, as it taught history and science rather than exclusively technical skills. --khaosworks 21:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nine years later, I've found that secondary sources differ on this question, so the article shouldn't say definitively that it's either. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The production subtitles on the DVD comment that it's a comprehensive and explain to a modern audience how this was a very new thing in 1963. Timrollpickering (Talk) 19:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Comprehensive or secondary modern?

message: Subject of this article is a major part of the DW origin story.  If notability is a concern with regards to a non-fictional school, I'd suggest renaming the article with a (Doctor Who) suffix.  Merging into An Unearthly Child might be appropriate, but that article is quite long already.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daburow (talk • contribs) 03:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendation for Deletion 

message: Merge into a Who page, not notable by itself. No independent sources regarding it except fan pages/episode guides. 86.139.247.169 (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You say that you're for deletion, but the first word of your rationale is "Merge". There is no such thing as "merge and delete", because attribution for the merged material needs to be preserved. Ansh666 19:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A mistake. Please do not remove deletion tags merely because IPs gave them, I found 's to be a more helpful edit, giving some semblance of notability. 86.175.80.78 (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not remove it , I did it because there was no valid rationale for deletion stated anywhere for me to complete the AfD. (And there still isn't.) Ansh666 08:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You're relatively experienced, and "No independent sources regarding it except fan pages/episode guides" is more than enough of a rationale. Simply removing it without fixing the problem clearly stated here is not good enough. 86.190.100.37 (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Except for that the first part was "Merge into a Who page" - an AfD with that would get speedy kept in a heartbeat. I did add a notability tag, too. Ansh666 19:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If an autconfirmed user added a tag, you would not remove it, you would see it out regardless of the hopelessness, hence my complaint regarding the treatment of IPs. If you must remove an AfD tag (an offence which can be met with a warning), please remedy the issue. 109.157.241.142 (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

text: You would not close it as speedy keep as only admins can close AfDs unless there are no delete votes and the nominator has withdrawn. An autoconfirmed user has no excuse for not creating the discussion, but IPs are unable to do so. 86.182.38.86 (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I can, and do, close AfDs per WP:NACD, which technically only restricts closes that I cannot technically carry out (delete). Anyways, there's no point in this conversation so I won't be back. Ansh666 19:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You could not have closed it within a few hours of it being posted. This is meant to be about consensus, not someome with only 5,000 edits removing IPs AfDs without fixing the problem. You even acknowledged the problem yourself by adding a tag. You should know better than to remove an AfD without fixing the issue. 86.169.210.72 (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete 

message: I've removed the following:
:The school arms consist of a shield with the Cross of St George between two dragons segreant, with the motto "Domine dirige nos", which translates as "Lord, guide us".
It used to be cited to Remembrance of the Daleks.  noted that this appeared to be WP:CIRCULAR. I suspect that the editor intended to cite not the Wikipedia article Remembrance of the Daleks, but the episode itself, perhaps hoping that someone else would come along and fill out . That's a questionable practice, of course; it's always better to cite secondary sources than to interpret the primary text ourselves. Anyway, although the description of the arms on the school sign does appear to be accurate, it also looks to me to be the same as this. I have no idea whether a school in Shoreditch would fall under the auspices of the City of London (or would have done so in 1963), but the entire question is fairly peripheral anyway. That said, if anyone can find a reliable source about these arms, they can be added back into the article (assuming it survives AfD). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You just have to walk around the City for about five minutes (as I did a few weeks ago) to realise that those Arms are everywhere in the Square Mile - on buildings, bridges, street name signs, lampposts, bollards (there are five Coats of Arms in this picture, four in this photo and three in this one). I think that it's the City of London Corporation (whose Arms they are) declaring that no matter what Boris believes, he's Mayor of London but not Lord Mayor. So the presence of those Arms on a school does not mean that they are the Arms of the school itself. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought something like that might be the case. Ta. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 11:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  School arms 

message: Now that the AfD has closed as "no consensus", what should be done with the  tag? On the one hand, there was no consensus that the article meets the GNG; on the other hand, there was no consensus that it doesn't. I have no idea what the usual practice is in cases like this. Anyone? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the template page says "If you find an article that is tagged as having notability concerns, and you are certain that enough in-depth, independent sources have been published about the subject to overcome any notability issues, then you may remove this tag" which is still kind of on the fence. It's not really a badge of shame on the article if left and the key point of the message at the top of the article is  "Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic" which is quite a positive statement, and inducement to others to help. The AfD is only recently closed, and a few more weeks of TV, and or perusing books etc may well provide more material ("No Deadline" and all that). GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability tag 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Coal Hill School. 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:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20140905144354/http://www.london24.com/entertainment/doctor_who_showcases_london_s_best_landmarks_and_shoreditch_1_3023476 to http://www.london24.com/entertainment/doctor_who_showcases_london_s_best_landmarks_and_shoreditch_1_3023476
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified