Talk:Wescott Infant School

Fair use rationale for Image:Wescott school picture.jpg

Image:Wescott school picture.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've now addressed the above concern thought I'm not quite sure if I've done it properly as I couldn't get the templates to recognise the existence of this article. Dahliarose (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge & ref tags

I've removed the tags from this article. It already has five references. The notability of the school is already well established. It is a very old school in a listed building which used to the the only educational establishment in the town. If you have concerns please discuss them here first so that they can be resolved.Dahliarose (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is that primary schools are not notable. Therefore the merge tag is entirely valid. Fmph (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is that each school should be considered on its own merits. Most primary schools do indeed fail to meet the notability guidelines, but primary schools in listed buildings have always been deemed to be notable because of the importance of the buildings and their long history. Dahliarose (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No need for merging here. This primary school is notable on its own, due to the building, its age and the royal visit. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at it from the other perspective, Wokingham is a fairly full article and Wescott School is a discrete section so would need to be launched as a separate page, had it been merged. In some cases you cannot win. It is wrong to say that they is a consensus that primary schools are not notably it is hotly disputed. Status quo.--ClemRutter (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC) (as requested)

This article is clearly not suitable for merging--it has too much encyclopedic content to fit into the proposed target in any sensible way. It has sufficient references for the content and the subject clearly passes any rational notability demand. I am removing the merge tag. There is no consensus that elementary schools are not WP:N; the only agreement between the deletionists and others is that elementary schools are not inherently "notable" and that they shouldn't get a free pass to holding onto an article rather than being merged.--Hjal (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

references

The references for this article are very poor and only partially cover one section - History. None of the rest of the article has any references. Therefore the refimprove template needs to stay. Fmph (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "poor". References should be from reliable independent sources which these are. Dahliarose (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

well, there is no verification of the first 3. But assuming they do say what they are suggested to say, then they are probably ok. But the coverage of the article is poor. Fmph (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The article was previously well referenced. A lot of the links have become out of date. You've simply removed all of these dead links without making any attempt to find replacement references. The references are from reliable books which you can order via inter-library loan from your local library. Dahliarose (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think I made no attempt to find replacements?Fmph (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just managed to find two replacement refs very quickly. The correct procedure for dead links is to repair them not to delete them. See this policy here. Perhaps you could restore the other refs that you deleted. Dahliarose (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

i've already looked and failed to find any replacements, unfortunately. Fmph (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just found another one. The article is now very well sourced. If you can't find replacement links you should restore the dead links until replacement links can be found as per the guidelines. They should all have this tag . There is also no requirement that everything should be fully referenced. It's only important for statements that can be challenged. As the article has plenty of refs, even excluding all the dead links that have been removed I will now remove the ref tag. Dahliarose (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)