Talk:King Edward VI Camp Hill School for Boys

message: 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)
thread_title:  Separate articles 

message: 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)
replies: text: Ah, it seems someone in-the-know has dealt with it.Parmesan 02:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Girl's School

message: 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)
thread_title: Religious

message: 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)
thread_title: Main Page

message: 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)
thread_title:  Too much detail! 

message: 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)
thread_title: Neutrality Issues

message: 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)
thread_title: Admissions controversy - neutrality issues

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pupil's Voice Section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inappropriate content 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Split 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unsourced alumni 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930024601/http://www.kingedwardsfoundation.co.uk/index.htm to http://www.kingedwardsfoundation.co.uk/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110920231226/http://www.kingedwardsfoundation.co.uk/admissions_grammar.htm to http://www.kingedwardsfoundation.co.uk/admissions_grammar.htm
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) 06:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion