Talk:Joint Matriculation Board

Education in the United Kingdom (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education in the United Kingdom, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Education in the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Education in the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Education in the United KingdomEducation in the United Kingdom articles

Greater Manchester Low‑importance

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dates

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Dear anonymous editor posting from many different IP addresses:

Why do you keep on taking the dates out of this article?

Thanks.

– Wumpus12 (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have just reverted again. Allow me to explain my changes.

The dates have been put back in. I see no reason for them to be removed. I note that you have also been systematically removing dates from lots of other qualifications articles. Why?

The source you cite discusses the IJMB. No-where does it say that the IJMB is linked to the JMB. Therefore, there is no source saying the JMB operated in Africa.

The information about where former students should apply for replacement certificates is still in the article. It has just been moved towards the bottom to keep things in chronological order. Personally, I do not think this information belongs in an encyclopaedia, but if others do, so be it.

The information about the comparability of old JMB exam papers is also still in the article, but in the correct chronological place, as the source gives dates for the papers used. Again, I don't think a study by a newspaper qualifies as scientific (especially as Ofqual carries out more scientific studies itself), but I'll leave that for others to decide.

The fact that some of this information had been in the article since you added it in November does not make it correct. Just like taking the dates out for months does not make that okay.

–Wumpus12 (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Add topic