Talk:Architectural Association School of Architecture

Well-known former students
I edited this section to remove non-notable former students. Criteria for inclusion should surely be existence of peer-reviewed Wikipedia article about each individual.Paul W (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * as well teachers who are non-notable I will remove. LibStar (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Image does not show subject matter
Image shown is not of Architectural Association, but of the S side of Bedford Square. The following image shows the W side which includes the AA building. Semudobia (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Updating the AA School Wikipedia page
Hi Wikipedia, I work at the Architectural Association as part of the Communications Studio and have been working with our archive team to update and restructure our Wikipedia, as the current page has inaccuracies and missing information. Please could the recent edits be reinstated? Cookseycook (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi User:CookseyCook. You have a conflict of interest (see WP:COI) and should not be undertaking undisclosed paid editing (see WP:UPE) of the AA article. I left a message on your Talk page explaining the reasons for the reversion and you have now confirmed your affiliation. IF there are inaccuracies or missing information, please raise them on the AA article's Talk page so that they might be considered by other editors. You should not edit the article directly yourself except in certain very limited circumstances. Paul W (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Article update
I have reverted a series of significant edits by User:Cookseycook as they removed significant content, removed reliable references, broke conventions relating to the Manual of Style, and introduced disambiguation issues (I have left a message on the user's Talk page). If the article is in need of an update, then the precise issues should ideally be discussed here first and then implemented if there is consensus among editors for the changes. Paul W (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Paul,
 * Apologies for not bringing this to a discussion beforehand, we are happy to discuss the amendments.
 * I am the Digital Content Editor at the AA, and have been working with our archivist on the text.
 * As a school with an archives department, we are keen to have the history of the school documented clearly on Wikipedia, we thought that breaking this down into time periods felt most appropriate, our student numbers were out of date, and we wanted to add more information on our public and publications programmes. Therefore it was felt a restructuring of the text might improve its legibility. The intention was to retain all information, but to reassemble in a more coherent way. We wanted to also include our academic programmes, and current status as well as these were missing. I can amend the referencing if it does not adhere to the style guide.
 * What is the best way to proceed to make these changes? Cookseycook (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding so promptly, Cookseycook.
 * If information in the article is inaccurate or out-of-date, then it is good practice to raise the issues on the article's Talk page, identifying the error(s) and, where possible, giving a reliable source(s) for the accurate or current fact(s) (see WP:RS on reliable sources - we usually seek independent, third-party sources, not sources closely affiliated with the subject).
 * Similarly, any major restructuring should be proposed on the Talk page so that it can be considered. Some types of Wikipedia content are created to conform with various style guides - see, for example, College and university article advice - as well as formatting in line with the overall Manual of Style (WP:MOS).
 * Any additions to the article's content should also be proposed, along with relevant reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a place for promotion (see WP:PROMO), so other editors should consider additions in line with relevant guidance, including neutral point of view (WP:NPOV).
 * Wikipedia is a work of reference, and, once created, most articles develop slowly and incrementally over time. Overwriting previous editors' work without explanation is not recommended; ideally, edits should help to improve the project.
 * Finally, look at other organisations that are the subject of articles and see how their in-house people manage Wikipedia conversations via the Talk pages - for example, Talk:Verizon Communications, Talk:Taylor Woodrow Construction or Talk:FGS Global.
 * I hope this is helpful. Paul W (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)