Talk:Durham School

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconCricket Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project and talk pages for more details.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket articles
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Cricket To-do list:
Article assessment
Verifiability
Cleanup
Infoboxes
Cricket people
Cricket teams & countries
Images
On this day in cricket
Umpires
  • Expand
    ICC Associates and Affiliates umpire panel
Women
Update
Other
  • Export all cricket terms present in
    List of cricket terms to Wiktionary

POV
-section

I'v placed a tag on the Co-Curriculum section indicating that it is written in a non-neutral manner. It resembles a school prospectus rather than an encyclopedia entry, with language such as "...allow them to build the skills they need to continue rowing to university and beyond" - this is imparting very little information and comes across as puffery on behalf of the school. "The strength of this approach is demonstrated in the national and international oarsmen and women that it has produced" is unsourced, and all information on Wikipedia should be

reliable, independent source
.

Similarly, in the following subsection, the sentence: "The school was unsurpassed prior to the First World War and just before the war supplied 4 England players as well as a number of England trialists - these halcyon days came to a tragic end when their international heroes were either killed or wounded in the war" is unsourced, stating that the school was "unsurpassed" is something that needs to be verified. It is understandable that writing about an organisation to which you are connected can lead to a rather romanticised portrait; it is important to keep to facts and reduce the hyperbole. – Toon 15:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the DBSC section could be more neutral and I have, therefore, edited it accordingly.
I am happy with the statement "...allow them to build the skills they need to continue rowing to university and beyond" as I know that this is an aim of the Club. As it is not a published aim, however, how can I reference it?
I am not an editor, in general terms, for the rugby bit, if I get the chance I'll have a look at that.--Teach46 (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now revised the rugby section to improve its language. I simply have not got time to find the sources for all this, although I agree that they should be there. I have also generally revised the co-curriculum section.
To this end, I propose to remove the POV tag since I feel that the language is now neutral. The whole Durham School page is covered by the sources tag so we don't need one here.--Teach46 (talk) 08:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The section looks better, but the sentence discussing the club's "aim" is unsourced and something more fitting of a promotional text. It'd be more appropriate if we can find a source for the assertion and then use a quote instead, otherwise it should be removed as
original research. – Toon 15:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I see your point, Toon05, and, ideally, I'd have preferred to leave it as it was. However, I've sourced a quote, admittedly off the school website, that does cover the general tone of what I was trying to say so I've added that. No one has objected or commented in the week since I suggested removing the POV tag so I'm going to do so now.--Teach46 (talk) 09:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus for move back to original stable version. --

talk) 18:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

This page was moved without discussion on 13 June 2009 from it's old name of Durham School to the current Durham School (Durham, England).

Discussion on the newly created Talk:Durham School disambiguation page has hinged around the existence of other Durham Schools in the world. As far as we can tell there are no other schools calling themselves Durham School. There is an historic place in Arkansas USA that is called that but it is not, currently a school.

Thus there is no need for disambiguation, and if it is felt that there was, Durham School (as in the UK one) is the

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC
for this title.

Proposed to revert the move and return the page to its previous title.--Teach46 (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move back per
    Durham School (Durham, England) is a 500-year-old independent school with dozens of notable alumni, and Durham School (Durham, Arkansas) seems to appear only as a brief entry in the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. Kanguole 09:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The moved discussion was my fault, sorry. Teach46 placed separate templates for the two moves and I attempted to combine them, with limited success. Regarding the need for a dab page, it's marginal with only two articles of that name, but I don't see it as a problem (provided it's at Durham School (disambiguation)). Kanguole 19:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support above move proposals per
    WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. — AjaxSmack 19:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
We wait for one of the WP:RM regulars to deal with it. (In any case, the second of these two moves can only be done by an admin.) Kanguole 14:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New sub-sections needed

To expand the Durham School page we need, I feel, a couple of sub-sections adding into the Extra Curriculum section. I know that music is a key part of the school life - CDs have been made and sold, performances at the Sage in Gateshead, etc. Theatre / drama is too. Should we add in the BBC Any Questions that was held in the school a couple of years ago? Anyway, these are outside my remit as I'm not up to date on them. Anyone else out there to add these please?

Also, please could someone expand the sports section to include information on the other sports?Teach46 (talk) 09:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bow School

Bow, Durham School, formerly known as Bow School, is the integrated prep school for Durham School. It is situated about 1/2 mile east of Durham School.

Should we have a separate page for Bow or a section here? Whichever, is there anyone to write it as I know little about Bow School. --Teach46 (talk) 10:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally schools lower than secondary level are not considered notable enough for their own articles, unless they can be demonstrated to be significantly more notable than your average primary or prep school. – Toon 14:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point - I think Bow may have some significance, let's see if someone comes up with a reason or to write addtions here.--Teach46 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To this end, and somewhat anticipating the result of this consultation, I have added a section for the prep school so that we can expand on it. If it gets too big it will, perhaps, need to move to the bottom.--Teach46 (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Sources

In April, someone placed a PrimarySources line in the beginning of the page. I think it was

WP:Help how to go about removing this but can find no information. So, unless anyone objects I intend to remove it as I feel the article has sufficient references to allow its removal, whilst accepting that, like many articles, it needs further work. Comments please.--Teach46 (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, the process of removal is this; if nobody objects on the talk page, it can be removed. While there could probably be more third-party sources added, I think removing the tag would be fine. We could use some sources (even from school websites etc.) for things like the school song, mind you. – Toon 14:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know what you mean about the song! However, printed on the back of the menu for the end of year ball may not be too easy to reference! It is correct, I've checked, but to reference it????--Teach46 (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I'm not sure that would qualify as a
reliable source. It's not the most contentious piece of information, so I think it can stay until we find a decent source for it. – Toon 15:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I could scan it - soup stains and all??? ;) --Teach46 (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article now has third-party references, so {{primary sources}} is no longer appropriate, but I'd say that {{refimprove}} would be warranted. Kanguole 15:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate please Kangoule?--Teach46 (talk) 09:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you've improved it a lot since last I looked. Still, the history, house system and school song sections could use more referencing. I expect there's a book or two about the history of the school out there. Kanguole 10:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points! There is a book, got it, can't find it, not at the library that has it! It will have to wait a while I think. These are sections that I didn't write in any case, but I'll tidy them up in due course.--Teach46 (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now changed it - see refimprove below.--Teach46 (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in process

There is a move discussion in progress on

RFC bot 15:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Refimprove

Further to discussion above about the primary sources, I have now changed this to a refimprove on the relevant sections.--Teach46 (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to add one to the Rugby section too since it clearly needs it. I could add one to the CCF section perhaps but it is small and this would mess up the look of the article for little gain.--Teach46 (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Following a request I am granting this article C-class and retaining its High-importance. A decent article with lots of content and references. The article is not far from B-class, but further improvements are needed. The lead section is only two sentences long, it should be expanded to summarise the entire article as well as introduce it. The history section needs a lot of expansion, particularly given the school was founded in 1414, a lot of history must be missing. A section on academics would also be nice. The extra-curricular section is good though avoid external links mid article and the CCF section is unreferenced. The alumni list is impressive except there are no references, some of those listed will fall under

talk 14:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Coordinate error

The coordinates need the following fixes:

  • I've added in the coordinates of the Boat House in the infobox rowing club. These have also appeared in the article messing up the coordinates for the school (which is not the same location). Anyone able to fix this? Thanks.

Teach46 (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

School song

Well, I didn't want to do it but I've thought about what

talk said above and I have come to agree, the song had to go. So, with some regret, I have deleted it.--Teach46 (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Re-assessment

It has been requested that I re-assess this article, and I have decided to leave the article at its existing ratings. The lead section is now a better length though it could still be expanded further, and the second paragraph is a little promotional. The sentence "Unlike most schools, however, Durham School operates a house system; all students are members of a single house." is rather problematic. The "most schools" comment needs a reference, though I suspect that it is probably unsourceable as it depends on the country you are in e.t.c. The wording "all students are members of a single house" is ambiguous and needs to be clearer; when I first read that I thought it was saying that the school only had one house, which obviously left me a bit confused. It is good to see lots of images appearing in the article, though the images should be on the left or right side with the text flowing around it, see

talk 13:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Academic results and subjects

The article gives an (out of date) overview of the results of the school and the subjects offered. The latter, in particular, is taken direct from the school website with no editing and has changed this year. I am far from convinced that this section adds anything to the article. Surely any school offers a range of subjects? Durham School offers nothing out of the ordinary here - exo-biology for instance - and there seem to be no major subjects left out. The results section needs to be updated to reflect the 2009 published figures and the 2010 ones when they become available later in the year. Again though, is this worthwhile - an interested party can check on the BBC website as easily as a wiki editor?

Thoughts please?????--Teach46 (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third assessment

I am re-assessing this article for WikiProject Schools and granting it B-class, as I now believe the article passes the

WP:BCLASS
criteria. I will quote the assessment request as there are some issues raised that need addressing:

I have done a lot of work on this since

Headmasters of Durham School. Thanks, --Teach46 (talk
) 11:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The lead section, while better than it was, seems rather fragmented with lots of short paragraphs and is a little promotional. For instance the lead says the school has a "vibrant and interesting history". I'm sure a fair case can be made that it does, but that is not neutral encyclopaedic language. Writing a neutral summary of the article can be hard, so I would advice editors take a look at the leads of featured articles on schools (full list at

CT Cooper · talk 16:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Durham Grammar School

Is the school sometimes referred to as "Durham Grammar School"? (see this search)

At the moment,

Durham grammar school
redirects here.

If this is the grammar school, then the article should say so explicitly, and both links should redirect here ... but if not, Durham grammar school should be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, this is the same school. When I try it both
    Durham grammar school redirect here. I have added an exlanation. Thanks, --Teach46 (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—

Talk to my owner:Online 07:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Durham 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Durham Cathedral Schools Foundation is a parent organization for what are now three separate schools

This article is about the Durham School that served ages 3 to 18. There are now three separate schools with the name Durham School re-used as the name of the 12–18 school. Perhaps we should close this one out as a closed school and write new articles about any of the new schools that are notable.

New schools:

  • Chorister School (3-7)
  • Chorister School (7-11)
  • Durham School

Gab4gab (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In September of 2021 Chorister School merged with Durham School and began operating under Durham Cathedral Schools Foundation as three separate school. Per the UK government website The Chorister School closed 28 September 2021.[1] A press release detailed merger plans with some details changing on implementation.[2]

Gab4gab (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Chorister School - GOV.UK". www.get-information-schools.service.gov.uk. Retrieved 24 December 2021.
  2. ^ "Durham School and The Chorister School announce plans to merge" (PDF). dcsf.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 May 2021. Retrieved 24 December 2021 – via Wayback Machine.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Durham_School&oldid=1207063705"