Talk:Royal Grammar School, Newcastle upon Tyne

message: This section is for general policy on how to cite Old Novo claims. For claims about specific people, see section Specific Old Novo claims below.
One area where it might be easy for inaccuracy to creep into this article is in the list of Old Novos. There are so many such people, stretching over so many years, it's hard for an editor with a general knowledge of RGS to be sure whether a newly-added name on the Old Novo list is correct or not.  And currently none of the names have references to validate that the people attended RGS.  Perhaps it would be good to work on adding such references. Discussion of specific cases follows. --Jdlh  | Talk 19:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be sufficient to ensure that each Old Novo listed has a main article in Wikipedia, and that the main article mentions and cites their attendance at Newcastle RGS.  As of today, almost all of the Old Novo entries have main articles that mention their attendance, and almost none cite their attendance. --Jdlh  | Talk 20:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Several articles contain lists of people - for instance, an article on a college usually includes a list of alumni. Such lists are never intended to contain everyone (e.g. not all people who ever graduated from the school). Instead, the list should be limited to notable people: those that already have a Wikipedia article or could plausibly have one, per this guideline. Editors who would like to add themselves to such categories are advised to use categories of editors for this purpose, e.g. :Category:Wikipedians by alma mater. --Jdlh  | Talk 21:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: So despite the above discussions and agreement, he still plans to go against policy and Jdhl's suggestions and links will be 'reverted immediately'. What an asshat. 212.11.179.182 13:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oi! first off, no personal attacks, please.  Words like "asshat" are not welcome.  Secondly, what are you talking about?  Tyrhinis hasn't made edits since April 15, 2007.  And I don't see how giving editors support for deleting vandalism immediately conflicts with the consensus on how to handle legitimate entries. --Jdlh  | Talk 17:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing Old Novo claims (policy) 

message: * [regarding policy that each Old Novo have their own article, and said article mentions and cites their attendance at RGS] Sorry, that's not right and it's not the usual practise on WP. Many people, places and events are listed in WP pages without having their own separate pages. The usual practise is to create a 'red link' and either fill it in later yourself, or hope someone else does so. Listed ONs should of course be notable - but they don't need to have a WP page yet. Anjouli 07:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate about whether notable alumni must have own articles, December 2006

message: The outcome was agreement that although it is clearly desirable that listed notable alumni have their own articles, current WP policy does not mandate this. However an article with proper references and citations would be valuable in authenticating listed alumni as the list is particularly prone to spurious entries. Anjouli 07:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So despite the above discussions and agreement, he still plans to go against policy and Jdhl's suggestions and links will be 'reverted immediately'. What an asshat. 212.11.179.182 13:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oi! first off, no personal attacks, please.  Words like "asshat" are not welcome.  Secondly, what are you talking about?  Tyrhinis hasn't made edits since April 15, 2007.  And I don't see how giving editors support for deleting vandalism immediately conflicts with the consensus on how to handle legitimate entries. --Jdlh  | Talk 17:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outcome: No, it is not mandatory 

message: I'm concerned about a number of edits to the RGS article between 2006-03-13 and 2006-03-21.  I think they don't meet the Wikipedia standard of Neutral Point Of View (NPOV). My concerns are listed below.  I am reverting the article to the version of 2006-03-12 05:07:05 by Johnwalton, and adding back in a new School Uniform reference (see below). 
* On 2006-03-20 20:37:30, anonymous editor 200.37.12.206 added the following three snippets, which I think have a clear Point Of View thinly veiled in "some say" language:
** Many, including members of staff, current pupils and alumini severely questioned the wisdom of this expansion into female education. Some believe it strikes at the heart of a age old tradition of single male education - leading the presitgious RGS down the path of its more common nieghbours Dame Allans and the Kings School Tynemouth.
**  This installation is to say the least not aesthietically pleasiong and some may say grotesque. In winter this ground was traditionally used for Rugby training and formed part of the circket pitch at the RGS. Many alumni believe it smacks of irony that an ex-cricket master at Winchester would be the one to but the final nail in the coffin of on site cricket at the RGS.
** More recently two major developments have occured at the RGS all supported by the heavily reformist James Miller. Firstly a plan has emerged for the removal of the pews and organ from the main school hall. This is to be replaced by a more 'modern' assembly in a Roman Forumstyle. Mr Miller would be in the middle hall, on a podium, like somekind of Holy proclaimer meets Anne Robinson reading the items of the day. There is a campaign, currently in its infancy promoting the pledge 'Pews in, Miller out!` which is available to any alumni wishing to express their views. Also changes have been made to the school emblem desplayed on advertisments and on the uniform. The latin motto at the bottom of the emblem has been ruthlessly slashed along with the colours being changed to somewhat more blaitant, and some may say tacky tones. Suffice to say not everyone in the RGS establisment past and present is impressed with the new emblem, but i'm assured the gaggle of 4x4 driving mothers of the new females to enter the school shall be.
* On 2006-03-13 04:40:50, anonymous editor 217.205.200.178 listed "Richard Miller, son of the headmaster and politics teacher at Highgate School" as a "Famous Old Novocastrian.  On 2006-03-20 20:17:31, anonymous editor 200.37.12.206 reversed this. Based on a cursory Google search for the name, and the subsequent POV comments about the current headmaster, I'm inclined to agree.
* On 2006-03-21 05:49:35 Andrew Millne listed himself under "Famous Old Novocastrians".  A few minutes later, James barton reversed this. I tend to agree, and perhaps the edit log indicates that Andrew Millne does too? 
* On 2006-03-21 10:04:03, Andrew Millne added a section on "School Uniform", with an image. Thank you, Andrew Millne, for recording the copyright status of the image. I've reinstated this after reverting the rest.  I think the image could be presented better and the uniform could be explained better, but I don't have an NPOV objection to it.  
It's great to have information on recent developments at the RGS recorded here.  However, this is an encyclopedia, not Hyde Park Corner.  If we want to record controversy, as in the walkout from Prizegiving mentioned elsewhere in Talk, let's make it verifiable, and record it in NPOV. I assume that some or all of these editors attended the Royal Grammar School (I did, 1975-78).  I'm sure we are capable of shifting between NPOV here, and advocacy elsewhere, each in its proper place. --Jdlh  | Talk 23:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Recent Developments", "Famous Old Novos", and Point-of-View 

message: I just reverted an edit by anonymous editor 82.39.120.174 to the last version by Garzo. The editor had deleted the  tag on the statement that Richard Metcalfe, the Bursar, was previously at Durham University.  The editor had also deleted a closing bracket on the link to Durham Universtiy, breaking it, and the closing parenthesis to the sentence. 
The statement that Metcalfe was previously at Durham was added on 2006-07-07T06:14:30 by anonymous editor 212.159.85.176.  I have no information about whether it is true or not.  I do think that in the spirit of verifiability we should have a reference that verifies Metcalfe was at Durham. I don't think this is a major issue.  This note is mainly in case anonymous editor  82.39.120.174 wonders why I reverted their edit.  --Jdlh  | Talk 16:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metcalfe at Durham 

message: I've added in a bit of blurb about the Novo, the re-Issue and the grammar along with a link to the latter's website - can't cite sources for the first two, alas, but it should probably be put in.  I'm not very happy with the wording though, so please change it if you feel it's wrong or could be put better. Tyrhinis 17:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  School Mags 

message: I've just fixed a few small points - several items were double-square-bracketed out, such as james Miller and Tony Bird, even though the first is a disambiguation for people called James Miller (and the only relevant one links straight back here) and the second is an (almost certainly) utterly unrelated singer.  Might it be worth mentioning the co-ed controversy, where some parents walked out of the Prizegiving when JFXM announced it?  I'll check the historical details tonight, I've got a history of the school. 82.109.186.194 13:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your attention to this article.  I think some description of the school going co-ed is valuable.  The trick is to keep it neutral and cite your sources. --Jdlh  | Talk 17:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Cleanup 

message: Would it be appropriate to include this link and a description of the incident? Bearing in mind that the rape occurred before Stephen Wilson's employment at RGS. Chips 11:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not relevant enough to the school - it doesn't really tell you much about the RGS itself.  See if the list mounts up and we might be able to have a "Famous Former Staff Members Who Were Criminals" section (I can think of a few teachers for that list)... Tyrhinis 12:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RGS Janitor rape conviction 

message: By 88.107.112.215 - and all they do is revert the same edits... how odd. Clearly the Easter holidays are getting to some pupils. Tyrhinis 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persistent vandalism 

message: Have added John Brand. Seems a surprising omission since he is mentioned in the school song (which is not mentioned int eh article!). 88.111.187.57 15:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your extensive improvements (and careful citations!) This is how Wikipedia advances. --Jdlh  | Talk 19:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are too kind. Nice to know it's appreciated.88.111.5.182 10:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Brand 

message: And another obvious omission. He's already mentioned in the article, but not in the list of ONs!! Quite a lot of other very famous ONs also missing I see. Very odd. 88.111.187.57 15:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Elstob 

message: Have added Ridley and also removed that unreferenced nonsense about "the third digit is not clear" which seems to have been a reaction to the error on the school's own website which gives the wrong date of foundation. 
And more:
I just know I'm going to get flamed over the date since the school website mentions the "traditional" (i.e. accepted before anyone did any proper research) foundation date of 1545, so here's some more evidence. It's well-documented that Thomas Horsley founded RGS (or more likely upgraded the status of an already-existing 'hye school') as one of his first acts as Mayor of Newcastle (See Oxon Dictionary of National Biography). Horsley was mayor of Newcastle in 1525 and 1533. , therefore 1545 is wrong. QED.88.111.187.57 16:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure I would go as far as to say that the school website is 'wrong'. What it actually says is "Although the exact date is a matter of argument, tradition has it that the Royal Grammar School was founded in 1545." And it IS a matter of argument. As you say, the evidence does seems to suggest that there was a school at St Nicks well before Horsley's time and his 'new' school was founded on that site. Can we claim it was the 'same' school? Hard to say. Can we say we have the same axe that Washington used to chop down the cherry tree if it has had three new heads and two new handles over the years? It seems that RGS did not have an exact founding date, but trails off gradually into the mists of time. It's even arguable that it was 'founded' later at the time Queen Liz granted the charter. The school feels happy with 1545 as the earliest provable date. You go with 1525 in the article which is also fine with me since you have given at least one reference to support this. It remains "a matter of argument" unless someone has a better reference. What IS very sad is that the school website (which sucks big time) has so little about the history of the school when so much documentation is available and the school has such a good histopry department. You would think they would be proud of such a distinguised history, but it seems not.  Anjouli 10:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. However Washington did not chop down the cherry tree. That's a myth :) 88.111.117.39 16:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridley 

message: How come Brian Hawley the actor is not listed as a pupil? I'm sure a lot of us who were at RGS in the 1960s remember him. 212.71.37.89 19:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Wikipedia's policy on citing reliable sources calls for claims like Hawley's RGS  attendance be backed up by a citation to a reliable source. There is no article at all for Brian Hawley right now, let alone one with a good citation. But this is a great opportunity! You are welcome to write the first version of an article on Hawley. Be sure to mention in that article that Hawley attended RGS, and cite there a reliable source for that claim. Then he can go in the notable pupils list here. --Jdlh  | Talk 08:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brian Hawley 

message: Armstrong and Bourne are both missing from the pupils list. It says to discuss here befor adding. What do we need to discuss? BOth are pretty famous ex pupils and are in the school song. Thanks.212.71.37.80 09:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: William George Armstrong, 1st Baron Armstrong's article mentions his RGS connection, so that's fine to add. Go for it!  There's no article for Henry Bourne (historian), so there's nowhere to document that he attended RGS.  If you feel energetic, the best thing is to create a stub article on Bourne, mention and document his attendances at RGS, then add a mention for him in this list. The easier option is to add him to the Notable Former Pupils list, with a footnote citing a reliable source for his RGS connection. The reason why there's a note to discuss here before adding is because we get silly additions all the time.  Your proposals are very reasonable, not silly.  Thanks for your contributions to this article. --Jdlh  | Talk 23:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Armstrong and Bourne

message: I think it's fine to have the school song in the article. However, we need Wikipedia:Verifiability. Can anyone point to a Wikipedia:reliable source for a) the text of the school song, and b) the identity of the people mentioned therein?  For that matter, what about a reliable source for the Head's decision to stop singing the song, and why; or for the translation of fortiter defendit triumphans?  I've sprinkled "needs citation" tags throughout the Song section.  Meanwhile, I'm off to find a reliable source for the "forty pence to mend it; frying pans" alternate lyrics. --Jdlh  | Talk 23:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you serious? You want a reference for a translation of of fortiter defendit triumphans? It's basic Latin for God's sake. Presume you are not an ON.212.71.37.61 17:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm serious. Thank you for your references, they improve the article. I see that once you checked a reference, you found mistakes in the original version of the song lyrics. That's why verifiability. Now, I'm not sure whether crappublicschools.org is really a reliable source, but at least it's a source. I couldn't find one myself. Anyone have an RGS-sanctioned source for the school song? However, the Michael Shanks personal page isn't a source for the decision to abolish the song, so I've removed it and replaced the "fact" tag. (And please, assume good faith, and don't call a fellow editor "idiot". Thank you.) --Jdlh  | Talk 21:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  School song 

message: Here's a reference that says RGS was "founded by Aselak of Killingworth in the 12th century". I've always felt uncomfortable with 1525 because Ridley is well documented to have attended RGS, but is equally well documented to have been at Cambridge by 1524. I'm not comfortable altering the article just on the basis of this web page, but does anyone have access to "Thomas Addison, M.D., F.R.C.P. 1794-1860" by C. M. Brooks to confirm?  212.71.37.109 19:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked it up in a library copy of the Brooks biography and whilst it's true that it does say RGS was founded in the 12th century, there are no references given. Very interesting; but not something I feel belongs in the article without further research and supporting reference. Yes, an earlier date would resolve the apparently contradictory Ridley references. It's not the first time Ridley's dates have perplexed RGS historians. There was an article about it in "The Novocastrian" (the old school mag) in the 80s. Must scan it and post it sometime. Anjouli 19:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founding date 

message: It's time to do some tidying up throughout the article.  There are citations to sources by means of links in square brackets in the article body; those should become ref.../ref citations. Footnotes attached to notable former students and staff should be moved to the articles of those people. The recently added external link to a history of the school should be turned into citations with ref.../ref spread throughout the article.  I'll be working on this, but I'd welcome help. --Jdlh  | Talk 20:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tidying up, help sought 

message: Have added Henry Bourne. No dispute over that one I think? Pretty well documented.Anjouli 21:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry Bourne 

message: I have divided the ONs list by century as it was getting ridiculously long. I trust the regular eds on this page find that in order. Perhaps needs tweaking a bit and some indents.
Are we at the point yet where we need to split them into separate articles, like the  Old Etonians?
I also wonder if there should be a separate page for the school history. Generally, the Eton article is a pretty good model to follow I think.
Opinions? Anjouli 18:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Centuries 

message: Any objections to Anthony Askew going into in the ONs list? Anjouli 19:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Askew has an article of his own, so he's notable enough. The article mentions him attending the Royal Free Grammar School, so that's good enough for inclusion in the RGS article.  It would be nice if the claim in the Askew article had a citation to a reliable source, but that is for editors there to work on. IMHO. --Jdlh  | Talk 18:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography referenced in Anthony Askew says he went to RGS. Anjouli 11:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthony Askew 

message: I'm filling in some of the 19th Century ONs as the article is a bit thin there. Nothing controversial, so I'm just putting them in. Hope that's okay with the regular eds. If not, or any doubts, just remove them and we can discuss here. Anjouli 16:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, terribly controversial. I'm concerned that many of these Wikipedia articles on 19th century ONs were written by the people themselves under assumed usernames, as vanity pieces.  For evidence, page back to the part of the edit log that covers the 19th century.  I have equal concern about some of the 18th century ONs too. --Jdlh  | Talk 18:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  19th Century ONs 

message: What about fraser forster who plays pro football for newcastle united?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.215.94 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Others have gone over this territory for us.  WP:BIO#Lists of people says that basically anyone who is notable enough to justify an article about them (even if that article doesn't yet exist) is notable enough to be in our list of Old Novos. Thus I'm comfortable with including any of these people.  If Kellner's article is a vanity piece, the correct response is to call for it to be deleted from Wikipedia. Then we should delete it from the Old Novos list too, for it will have failed the WP:BIO notability test.  --Jdlh  | Talk 18:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yup, he overlapped with me though he was a couple of years ahead of me, though I am not sure  that personal testimony counts :-) TerryE (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:   Modern ONs 

message: Jdlh, are you about? 
These ONs just seem to go on and on. It sometimes seems as if half the world went to RGS. The Notable ONs list is getting rather large, but it seems perverse not to add very notable ONs, when those of less notability are already listed.
As an attempted solution, I have created an Old Novocastrians category. I would suggest that we use that for the lesser ONs and just list the VERY notable ones. Either that, or move the whole list out of the article to a separate page. That might mean pruning the existing list. What do you think? Or does having a WP article automatically mean we should include. Interested to hear your and others opinion. Anjouli 20:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "These ONs just seem to go on and on", true, but that's just because we like hearing ourselves talk.  It's not that half the world went to the RGS, it's that the RGS makes us so intelligent and good-looking that we rise to become half of all notable people in the world.  An RGS education gives us better teeth too.  Anjouli, I appreciate your efforts to document the results.  That said, I think that we should follow the lead of WP:BIO#Lists of people, and include anyone on our Old Novos list who is notable enough to be worth a Wikipedia article in their own right.  The Category is a good way to track that set of articles. But it also makes sense to have a "List" article, because we can keep track of related information (birth and death year, subheads by century, etc.) When the list becomes unwieldy for this article, the thing to do is to make it to its own article.  This has been done for other schools. --Jdlh  | Talk 18:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Novos category 

message: As I understood it, "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" was just the motto on the Assembly Hall organ. The school motto was (is?) "Discendo duces": "By learning you lead".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.33.56 (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motto 

message: The article states "The accompanying picture, from a school brochure, depicts the new design." but there is no longer an accompanying picture.  I came here ages ago and thought the picture was useful.  No obvious debate about it here, apart from one mention above.  Perhaps somebody would like to reinstate it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.123.143 (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniform 

message: The article states: "The RGS school song was abolished by the current headmaster on the grounds that it is dated and gender-specific (RGS is now a mixed school) and is no longer sung."  I'm not sure which 'current' headmaster this refers to but the song stopped being sung at least several years before James Miller even took on the role.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.34.10 (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. It was Miller who stopped it for the reasons stated. I was present and actually remember the announcement, but I've searched and searched without finding a reference anywhere. Anybody got one? I guess not everything is on the internet :) 88.213.52.85 (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  School Song 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Lukes
CV Section of http://sociology.fas.nyu.edu/object/stevenlukes indicates Lukes is an O.N.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.205.94.62 (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stephen Lukes 

message: Location of School
I don't wish to be a pedant, but Newcastle upon Tyne is not in Tyne & Wear. The county of Tyne & Wear only existed from 1974-84. It survives as a postal address in rural Tyneside, but is completely redundant if erroneously appended to major postal cities such as Newcastle (and, for that matter, Sunderland and Gateshead). Haltwhistlehistory (talk) 11:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of school 

message: William Feaver added (Art, 1970s). He is a well known art critic (The Guardian, The Spectator) and was the author of the original book "The Pitmen Painters", which inspired Lee Hall's play of the same name. Haltwhistlehistory (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, remember him well, with his little beatnik beard. Very controversial at the time. And old Marford-Smith of course, the senior art master. Have been meaning to add Bill Feaver for a while, but could never find a citation. 31.167.195.107 (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has very specific guidelines on the criteria for notability.  These are a lot more severe than a test such as "well loved and remembered by Old-Novos".  I have removed the references to Hazel-Jones Lee and Bill Gibson as there seem to little or no internet or published references to either outside of RGS produced material and they therefore fall far short of the requirements.  Bill Feaver is a more arguable case because of the points given above by IP 36.... -- TerryE (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:   Just to clarify, the WP:PEOPLE guideline is primarily to assess whether a person is sufficiently notable to merit an WP article on them, however, the convention in other articles is that the people listed in a "Notable" section should also broadly follow this test. -- TerryE (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: @164.143.244.33, please read the above.  Same reason for undo. -- TerryE (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

text: +1.  Sad though this was, it isn't now a "notable" (in WP terms) even for the description section.  It also occurred 6 years ago, so I think it time to remove it. -- TerryE (talk) 10:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that IP 46.208.151.134 has reinstated this.  I still think that this is incorrect.  perhaps IP 46... can explain his/her reasoning for this?  -- TerryE (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Staff 

message: I notice we have hyphens in Newcastle upon Tyne here and elsewhere.
That is not correct. No hyphens and a lower-case upon is right.
I'm not the girl to fix it. Too busy.
Volunteers?
188.48.3.35 (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newcastle-upon-Tyne? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Royal Grammar School, Newcastle upon Tyne. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.myjacobfamily.com/favershamjacobs/georgemortimer.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Royal Grammar School, Newcastle upon Tyne. 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/20070515221158/http://www.rgs.newcastle.sch.uk/theschool/history.php to http://www.rgs.newcastle.sch.uk/theschool/history.php
*Added  tag to http://www.njdc.org.uk/history/2010/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newcastlecc.co.uk/saving_cricket_at_jesmond/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.local.odpm.gov.uk/finance/balance/membrshp.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170101162838/https://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/about/master-fellows/the-master-of-trinity/ to https://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/about/master-fellows/the-master-of-trinity/
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) 15:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm less than happy with the sentence "Several rudimentary air raid shelters were built above ground for military personnel, which although substantial enough to survive as store rooms until the end of the century would have offered little protection, even from an indirect hit."  The sentence is in the cited source so I'm not reverting it, but the purpose of air raid shelters is to protect from debris and flying glass, not bombs.  Consider Anderson or Morrison shelters, they provided no real protection from near misses and none for a direct hit.  Morrisons in particular just protected the occupants from the house collapsing upon them.  A "bunker" is the more usual term for a bomb-proof structure.  I suspect that RGS shelters were simply to provide a safe space in case the buildings collapsed and most importantly to provide protection from flying glass. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air raid shelters 

message: The "Buildings and grounds" section says
The school has recently launched a building programme, to update the school with a new library, art facilities and pastoral care centre. In addition, the school are also redeveloping the sixth form area, which was last significantly re-developed in 2001.
but this building programme was completed last year. I found an article on it, information on the website and what I assume is some information from the construction company but I am not sure if these are good sources. Also, the staff counts in the Organisation section seem outdated. I fixed the junior school information by just counting the number of staff there in the staff list, but that does not scale well. 86.171.125.102 (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated information