Talk:Caterham School
Add topic | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Victuallers 19:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
A good school.
Is it? Buzwad 14:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No, not really. RedHotRadiators (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
It needs an infobox on the front page. This article can be rated higher if it gets references etc. Have a go! Victuallers 13:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Please add a section about outdoor learning and the change of headmaster at the end of 2015 July. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.108.178 (talk) 19:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Caterham 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://web.archive.org/web/20110717035558/http://www.caterhamschool.co.uk/news/assets/Caterham%20School%20Create%20The%20William%20Wilberforce%20Bursary%20for%20Sixth%20Form%20Candidates%2009%2011%2012.pdf to http://www.caterhamschool.co.uk/news/assets/Caterham%20School%20Create%20The%20William%20Wilberforce%20Bursary%20for%20Sixth%20Form%20Candidates%2009%2011%2012.pdf
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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Girls had been admitted to the sixth form education since 1981. Really?
[edit]I was there until summer '87. I was in the Main School from autumn '84, and the min school had one assembly for everyone every morning. And I never saw any girls.
I'd heard girls had been admitted to 6th form some time after I left, can't remember when, exactly. But there were no girls there while I attended. Ganpati23 (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
- I left the school in 1971 and there were a few girls in Sixth Form classes at that time. I think they were from Eothen and were taking advantage of our science facilities. Girls from Eothen also used our swimming pool - their arrival and departure times carefully designed to avoid being seen by the boys (unless you were able to get a window seat in the classroom overlooking the pool entrance) ~2026-27140-35 (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
Copyright, Non-rs junk and uncited content
[edit]Hi @ChrisKently: I see you tried to add a second fair-use rationale for Cuthbert Dukes. That is not allowed. All these fair use images on here will need to removed. The only place they can be displayed is on the bio article. I've also removed a whole social media driven junk that is non-RS and a whole bunch of uncited content which is junk. scope_creepTalk 13:16, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for making sure it follows the guidelines and for tidying up un-cited material. Do you think it possible to justify the removed images in any other way? (or can they only be used once in the bio article?) It would be a shame if not because really those fair use images all link to the bio articles. ChrisKently (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- @ChrisKently: It's a giant pain in the jacksy, having to deal with copyright. That is why Wikipedia is an image desert as regarding bio images. I was in a similar situation to yourself once. Saw that somebody had added a second fair-use rationale for a copyrighted image with a fair-use template and did the exact same for about 40 other images but three days later the whole lot was removed and got spoken to by a copyright editor. It was recent as well and I've been here more than 20 years. I thought I would give it a try but it was a waste of time, an attempt to exploit a loophole essentially. They weren't happy. Your only allowed the image on the main bio article if its fair-use and even then its very strict. The person must be dead. PD images, they can be used anywhere. Often you must wait until it is public-domain, or if you can contact the invidual or the family directly and ask for an image. There is folk that send emails around to try and get PD images but its a lot of effort for not a lot of return. Most folk can't upload images. They often find very difficult for that age bracket, although its getting better. For those folk that have died and you can't contact the family or friends directly, it is almost impossible to get a PD image. I made an effort once to explore the whole process but it was a pain. You have to wait, probably for the next generation to fix it. Lastly don't use social media for references, ever. It is often WP:PRIMARY and often misinformation. Lying on social media is very big thing. If there is content that been cited i.e. having a CN tag on it, meaning its not cited, e.g. for more than 6 months, remove it. Take the long view. Eventually the content will go in if its correctly cited with WP:RS but perhaps not by yourself. Maybe somebody 20 years up the road. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 14:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- Many thanks for taking the time to explain it thoroughly and making sure the article complies by the rules. ChrisKently (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
- @ChrisKently: It's a giant pain in the jacksy, having to deal with copyright. That is why Wikipedia is an image desert as regarding bio images. I was in a similar situation to yourself once. Saw that somebody had added a second fair-use rationale for a copyrighted image with a fair-use template and did the exact same for about 40 other images but three days later the whole lot was removed and got spoken to by a copyright editor. It was recent as well and I've been here more than 20 years. I thought I would give it a try but it was a waste of time, an attempt to exploit a loophole essentially. They weren't happy. Your only allowed the image on the main bio article if its fair-use and even then its very strict. The person must be dead. PD images, they can be used anywhere. Often you must wait until it is public-domain, or if you can contact the invidual or the family directly and ask for an image. There is folk that send emails around to try and get PD images but its a lot of effort for not a lot of return. Most folk can't upload images. They often find very difficult for that age bracket, although its getting better. For those folk that have died and you can't contact the family or friends directly, it is almost impossible to get a PD image. I made an effort once to explore the whole process but it was a pain. You have to wait, probably for the next generation to fix it. Lastly don't use social media for references, ever. It is often WP:PRIMARY and often misinformation. Lying on social media is very big thing. If there is content that been cited i.e. having a CN tag on it, meaning its not cited, e.g. for more than 6 months, remove it. Take the long view. Eventually the content will go in if its correctly cited with WP:RS but perhaps not by yourself. Maybe somebody 20 years up the road. Hope that helps. scope_creepTalk 14:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Lead content
[edit]User:ChrisKently Please use the talk page for discussion rather than an edit summary as you did with [Caterham School: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia] and [[Caterham School: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia]]. The edit summary is used for describing what was done in an edit. The function of the lead is described in MOS:LEAD. In particular 'Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.' Ephemeral reports and awards should not be there and your opinion on what will be most used by prospective parents is just that, an opinion. Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
- Many thanks for trying to make sure that this article follows the set guidelines about the lead which you kindly refer to. I do, however, still maintain that this is an article which will mainly be used by prospective parents and so the position of such awards is important as schools use these as marketing subtitles which are then associated with the 'brand', enabling users to quickly find the citations for it. You describe them as 'ephemeral' which might indeed be true but are, for now, the latest updated information about their achievements. I refer you to most articles from HMC schools which demonstrate having this information in the lead. That said, I do recognise your point which is entirely valid. Here is a proposed compromise: a section, directly after the lead entitled 'Awards'. What are your thoughts on that? Kind regards. ChrisKently (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
- These are both good points. Whilst SovalValtos says 'Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article', the manual used also opens with "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points". Having a description of (eg. awards/ recognitions) explains is needed to explain why it is notable and, more importantly, evidence it rather than relying on generic facts which might approach opinion. (So instead of a "leading school", the award is given). This is why so many other schools do this: see Brighton College Canford School for example. That said, it is important to recognise the danger in which this might advertise and so the tone needs to be carefully considered. Chaldon rambler (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)