Talk:Malvern St James/Malvern Girls College talk archive

Assessment
The article has been written in good faith, but has been tagged for lack  of required information and formal  style. This is in no way intended as a criticism, and should be regarded as flagging the article to attract  the attention  of editors who  may be able to contribute to it. major problemsare the complete lack of citations or information soources, a lack of structure of elements in logical order, and a tone that  is not  quite formal enough for an encyclopedia. Worcestershire Wikipedians may be able to help improve this article.--Kudpung (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is now written in the past tense, due to the merger to form Malvern St James. Is any one watching this article familiar with the present set up of the amlagamnated school? If so, could this article be edited and converted into one on the existing school, with an approprriate rename? This can only be done by a loggedin user. If that is a problem, please amend the article and then leave a note on my talk page. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've started an overhaul of the article and will probably  suggest  renaming it  Malvern St james, with a redirect  from  Malvern Girls' College.--Kudpung (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)--Kudpung (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Move
Malvern Girls& → Malvern St James — This article was created by an anonymous user  in  2004. Since then it has not received a single reference. Revision statistics show that in the following six years there have been very  few edits and  little improvement of the article. In the meantime the school  has merged with  St James School to  be renamed Malvern St James. It has been suggested that  the article be moved to Malvern St James, and rewritten with  a focus on the new school, while retaining  some elements of history.. Kudpung (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A move will create a redirect from MGC to the new page. Please venture your opinion below while respecting the conventions  and format  of  a Wikipedia debate. If after seven days no consensus is reached, a Wikipedia user who  is a member of both  the Shchools project  and the Worcestershire project will make the move.


 * Support move:  There appears to  be little interest, even from  alumnae to  maintain  the article, so  a move is the best  solution  in  the interests of keeping  the encyclopedia up to  date.--Kudpung (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: Article name should follow current school name. The redirect will make sure people find the right place. Kind of sad not to have more interest from the school itself - you would think it would make a nice project for someone. GyroMagician (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: For the reasons above. LilHelpa (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support: Sounds like a good idea. Nev1 (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but the article is likely to need considerable refashioning to fit its new role. I doubnt that we need a sepaarate article on the former (pre-merger) school, unless it is purely historical.  However I do not know enough of any of the predecessors to comment in detail.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment;I have a new article ready to  go  (See below) when the seven days has expired. It  will obviously  need more work, but  the idea will  have been fulfilled.--Kudpung (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus reached : Move (unanimous). This article has been renamed/moved per the above move request according to WP:RMCI. --Kudpung (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ 'Movereq' tag removed
 * ✅ Fixing fair use rationales
 * ✅ Fixing redirects