Talk:The John Fisher School

message: more refs pics welcome Victuallers 09:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion

message: Can anyone help sort through the material? It looks like a lot of the edits have been vandalism edits, but it's hard for me to figure out. Enigma msg! 21:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help! 

message: I removed some people who are not notable  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.241.128 (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  people 

message: Another part of the edit war, though I would normally expect this to be an incidental casualty of the reversion approach, is the list of notable alumni. There are three entries which are being added and removed, and so should be referenced or removed:
*Matthew Leek, (rugby player) ex Saracens, London Wasps, Leinster & England u21
*Fr Tim Finigan, editor of the Hermeneutic of Continuity Catholic blog
*Dominic Appleton and Gary Mundy, singer and guitarist respectively with Breathless (band)
Of course the others should also be referenced, but as these three form part of the edit war it is important to ensure they follow policy. I have to say Fr Tim Finigan does not at first glance appear to be a notable alumnus according to usual standards. So, can we get some references for these, which both establish their notability and that they attended to school? -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say members of breathless (band) would probably be notable enough for an alumni list. We have an article about them, even though it's a bit short of references at the moment. However the notability of this fact can only really be determined by whether there are indepedent reliable sources mentioning it. Sources should provide a link between the notable person, and the school. I say this specifically because it would not be enough to provide a source which says that a Dominic Appleton attended the school. It should be the Dominic Appleton. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, as I said it is common when people continue just reverting each other to an old version, that legitimate edits end up being reverted with them. And it's useful to pull out the good edits from the disputed ones. The earlier instances of edit-warring over the bullying sections did not include these alumni. If you can find a reference that would be great, if not we can probably conclude that they are probably right, or at the least, uncontroversial and collateral. The references on the Internet to Matthew Leek sort of suggest that he might have attended this school, though they don't appear to state it directly. However I still think Fr Tim Finigan should be removed, unless it can be shown why writing a blog would make him notable. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Some say that what hurts Wikipedia most is its propensity to collect unverifiable information. It doesn't matter for the purpose of making articles fit Wikipedia's content policies whether users are registered, unregistered, or not logged in. The relevant policy here is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is a minimum requirement for inclusion. Unverifiable information may be challenged and removed, and the burden is on those who wish to restore it to provide references. Removing this information while it is unreferenced is not vandalism. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Alumni list

message: This section badly needs cleaning up. I am happy so to do but I should like to seek support, here, first. A prerequisite is that attendance at the school should be reliably sourced - no source must mean no inclusion. The second prerequisite is notability. A page is not needed to demonstrate notability but it helps! Looking at the red-links some have no claims to notability and for some the claims can be simply tested. Take Mike Pointing for example. If he has played in a competitive match for Harlequins first team then he meets WP:Athlete. If he has just played for their academy then he doesn't. If Michael Latham is an influential film-maker why doesn't he have a page? My view is that if an editor thinks that an alumnus is notable and feels strongly that they should be included in this list then write a stub! It is always quicker to write a stub than have a long debate trying to establish their notability separately.
To deal with this situation efficiently I am proposing that red-linked or unsourced people should be moved here. This preserves the information that we have about them and they can then be moved back to the article as sources are found or notability is demonstrated. Views, please. TerriersFan (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you, TerriersFan. Move the redlinks here or give a diff to the deletion; they can be added back when the burden of proof is met. tedder (talk) 01:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I too agree with your suggestion. Thanks for taking this on. Marlon232 (talk) 08:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

text: And another support. A few are non-notable, but I see a few (referenced) redlinks with potential. Bring 'em here for sorting out. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable alumni 

message: this user edit wars and calls my edits vandalism even though they aren't. this is wrong. I tried to warn him and he removed it calling it vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Husounde (talk • contribs) 03:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  marlon 

message: Whoever runs this website please make it clear that the school was selective between 1992 and 2000. Because this is the only reason people sent their kids there otherwise we would have gone Private or Grammar. It makes kids who attended between 92 and 2000 out to be comprehensive school boys!
This will impact their job/career chances!
Thank you,
Mr and Mrs Horan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.140.72 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already says that: "In 1992, following much discussion and a vote by parents, John Fisher was incorporated as a Grant Maintained School and operated a selection policy."[emphasis added] Is there a tweak to this wording you recommend? As for what's in the infobox, that's just a snapshot of the school's current status, not its complete history. —C.Fred (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selective from 1992 to 2000? 

message: Can someone please get a half decent school logo up on this site please i've been asking for 2 years.
And also please stress the school was selective from 1992-1999 and that it simply was not a bog standard comp.
Thanks,
Mr Horan (The previous text was moved here from the main article page.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.47.81.119 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the logo, point me to one online, and I can see about getting it onto Wikipedia. Regarding selectiveness, see the above section. —C.Fred (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the red file there now. Husounde (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo, selective 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:JFS2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: The pot pourri approach to article structure was hindering reading and editing. I have pulled it back to resemble a more normal school article- St John Fisher Catholic School.The article is about the school- that is architecture, curriculum etc and we need to focus on that, a huge part will be the struggle that the diocese and governors have had with selection but that should be contained as history and not become all embracing. While sports results interest some, they should take undue weight. If tables are used, then they should be used properly |+ for example. ClemRutter (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: A more normal structure