Talk:Riddlesdown Collegiate

6th Form

Is there any evidence for the most gifted students leaving to go to other 6th form centres? I was at the 6th form not too many years ago and I was one of the most gifted pupils in my year (even if I do say so myself!) I don't recall any other 6th forms impressing me. Of course I could have tried to get into a grammar school.. Anyway, in my year the most gifted pupils stayed on at the 6th form. I almost suspect the negative comments about the 6th form might be written by a local private school or something!

Also are there any references to support the A-level grade percentages mentioned?80.229.221.14 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC).

It says that the Sixth Form opened in 1999. I started at the school in 1998 and it was already there. I think I might have read in some school literature that it started in '97.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.147.124 (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

October 2007

As a current pupil I cleaned up some of the recent changes to the school. The grammar was terrible and the previous edit had too many opinions (mostly negative). It's still not perfect though.

-(BrutusCirrus 22:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC))

November 2007

Using my nickname is totally unessecary. (BrutusCirrus 18:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

Please take more care over your spelling ("unessecary") to help maintain the high quality of contribution to wikipedia. Possibly use a spellchecker first if NECESSARY. (mlc409 20:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

"Riddlesdown High School is arguably well on its way to becoming Croydon's best state run high schools" This section has been removed. Please do not include personal opinions in articles otherwise they can become biased. wasteman find sumfin beta 2 do apart frm criticising ovas spellin 79.75.59.121 12:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

y is hi on aboot speeling for. dc141 10:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, please do not delete whole blocks of the article as this can make the school appear in a biased manner and so can reduce the factual integrity of Wikipedia as a whole. Thank you. Ichbinbored ^talk 10:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed also that large amounts of information added by myself seem to have been removed, interestingly what has been removed does not paint the school in a favourable light, but is none the less factual, please do not do this, as it presents the school in a less objective manor. This leads me to wonder if it is being edited by a biased staff member. dc141 11:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed quite a lot of information which does not meet Wikipedia's basic standards of verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research. This includes things like your art criticism and speculation of whether the headmaster can use a computer[1]. Please provide reliable sources for additions of content, and refrain from adding your own personal commentary and views. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the point about the Art adn the headmaster and his IT skills are valid, i am not saying that he could or couldn't use a computer, i am mearly outlining the speculation and the feeling of the student body, which is a very important part of the school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fc02dcurtis (talk • contribs) 11:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Scabies Outbreak

I've removed the Scabies and Trivia sections. Firstly, the Trivia is ridiculous as the un-sourced information is about a past headmaster and not really Wiki-worthy. I removed the Scabies Outbreak I removed as it is also hardly wiki-worthy too. Furthermore, I think you are over analyzing the situation, especially the letter. At the time of writing there have only been two confirmed cases of Scabies. -(BrutusCirrus (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC))

Replied on your talk page. Ichbinbored ^talk 17:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

"wiki-worthy" perhaps you'd like to do some research. there are many other articles on wikipedia that list information about disease. therefore removing it is somewhat unnecessary (notice the spelling). Given that there was also reference to the topic, which has been deleted for "copyright infringement" because a user reported it (I wonder who). The facts don't lie so I'm going to put it up there again, given that there are sources that confirm what is being said I don't expect it to go missing

dc141 (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so seeing as the term 'outbreak' is used to describe a small, localised amount of people who have contracted an infection/disease, I do seem to recall that only 4 people contracted it (that's the localised part destroyed then). Seeing as this is only 0.2% of the entire school (and only affected two people from said number of year groups), and only 0.0000006% of the population of England, I hardly think that this 'outbreak' is worthy to mention. For example, if a chemical plant has a minor spillage that affects a minority under 1%, nobody would report it and describe it as an event large enough to warrant an entire section to itself of an encyclopaedia page... however, if it were serious enough to close the place for a few weeks, that would be deemed worthy of mentioning. Placing idiosyncratic comments and articles on the page is a dreadful waste of time and does not warrant an entirely separate section on the page, if even a mention. Oh, by the way, the sources should only be used to confirm facts that are relevant to the matter at hand, and the article. So what if other articles list information about disease? You've almost juxtaposed your own statement by saying that other articles are free to contain information regardless of importance, whereas you are clearly wanting to get this article onto the page for the sake of it being there. If you're going to add something, make sure it's worthy enough of being put up there. And also, don't use the discussion page as a board to snipe at other Wikipedia members - it gets you nowhere in the long run.

User:Rick 50000 (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2008

buses

we know that pupils behave poorly on buses as documented by the local newspaper, although contested by a few people, I too was on the bus at the time, and it was a small lump of what apeared to be concreate. also please refrain from making edits not in the best interest of wikipedia. Deleting content (even though it is factual) to support your own views is against the idea of Wikipedia and against the Idea of freedom of speech and fredom of information. also this is irritating, please don't do it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fc02dcurtis (talk • contribs) 08:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

uniform section

advance notice, its all factual and well known containing no original research, so anyone who edits or deletes as seems to keep happening every time a new piece of information is introduced, can only be assumed to be heavily biased in favour of the school, and very keen on the idea of censorship.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.82.4 (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC) 

Original Research

I'll second the point made on the Uniform Section. Seems that previous members of the school only want to make it seem stupid, so I'm imposing a citation banner, seeing as this original research near the bottom end of the article has no provenance (For example, the Jack Petchey scheme and the death of Mr. Goss (all it takes is a scan of a newsletter to confirm this)). If there are no citations within a certain time, the sub-articles will have to be removed, as this does not tie in with Wikipedia guidelines (also, I am a member at the school). Also, the use of the word 'forced' for example in the uniform section is extremely biased... at no point do Riddlesdown 'force' us to wear anything, it is just rules and regulations. If the language used in the article does not clear up as well, a bias banner will be making it's way to this article as well. User:Rick 50000 (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ducks

Apparently they got stolen or lost, I haven't seen them in a while. I heard today that the the fifth year was susposedly to blame after leaving. Does anyone know what happened to them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrutusCirrus (talk • contribs) 18:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ali Harber Ali as a former pupil?

Just want to find out if it's worth keeping this in or not and get some sort of consensus from other editors. No problem if people decide no (I'm not willing to fight to the death!). Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I find notable pupils sections to be a bit random, so don't have strong opinions, but would suggest this is a case where the person is more notorious than notable. It is not particularly relevant to his crime that he went to this school, and importantly here, he does not have his own Wikipedia page. The link sent us to a page about the crime and not the criminal. I don't think it is information that is important for understanding the school (the purpose of this page), and Wikipedia pages are not meant to be indiscriminate in their coverage. On the basis of a lack of Wikipedia page for the subject, my opinion is omit. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Stabbing Incident

I removed the stabbing incident as WP:UNDUE and failing WP:10YT, but an editor has reverted this back in simply because it has been there a while. Per WP:BRD I am now opening this section to establish a consensus. I note that the incident gets local press attention, but that is not enough to establish notability for this specific article. This article is about a school, but every incident at the school is not individually notable, even if it gets local press attention. It is necessary to establish that the incident tells us something more general about the school. For instance, if a school were known for having a large number of such incidents, then a section would be due, in which this would sit alongside other such material. I note that this is the only disciplinary or other such incident on the page, even though the school has garnered a lot of press attention over the years, both good and bad. So again, we are writing about the school. This is not a place to list a bunch of random incidents. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Also adding that the edsum on the reversion [2] is incorrect. This information has not been on the page for 18 months. It has been on there since April this year [3], and although that is 8 months ago, there have only been 20 page edits in total in that time, and 6 of them by me. "No one's complained" is not correct. My removal of the April bold edit is a challenge to the material, which is WP:UNDUE as per my edsum. Per WP:ONUS, it is necessary to establish a consensus to include challenged material, and without that it should be omitted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

As you have had time to make other edits yesterday and today, and per WP:SILENCE, I shall now remove the challenged material. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)