Talk:New College Worcester

Untitled
Closed Down

Closed Down

Update and Cleanup
This article has several issues. Apart from not  having  received any significant  attention for a very  long  time (2007), it has been constantly subjected to  vandalism. It needs:
 * Updating to take into account the changes that were to take place in  2007.
 * Restructuring
 * Rewriting into encyclopedic tone.
 * Article and talk page protection. --Kudpung (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk Page vandalism
I'm restoring  this page as best  I  can from  its creation:

I can understand fully that perhaps the article was a tad rambly. However, as Worcester was once the premier, elite of its kind in the UK, surely it deserves to have a far longer article? Especially considering that its a boarding school - surely some of the accomdoation should be discussed?
 * Cleanup?

I think it might be useful to elucidate further on why exactly NCW split from RNIB, as this is a key moment in NCWs' history, and as the article notes, was somewhat drawn out and controversial. It would give the reader further insight knowing exactly why this is so, as currently it only briefly mentions what is a relatively important point.Wheelzsc (talk | contribs) [welcome]
 * further info on seperation?


 * I have attempted to add some information on NCW's split from the RNIB - but really need information to do this --Blindtimelord 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone has removed large portions of this article - namely in the RNIB split section and trivia, plus the school motto, which if I can recall from offical school records was 'they can because they think they can'... or has New College changed that also? --Blindtimelord
 * Removal of information?

I can understand fully that perhaps the article was a tad rambly. However, as Worcester was once the premier, elite of its kind in the UK, surely it deserves to have a far longer article? Especially considering that its a boarding school - surely some of the accomdoation should be discussed?
 * Cleanup?

I think it might be useful to elucidate further on why exactly NCW split from RNIB, as this is a key moment in NCWs' history, and as the article notes, was somewhat drawn out and controversial. It would give the reader further insight knowing exactly why this is so, as currently it only briefly mentions what is a relatively important point. ▪	I have attempted to add some information on NCW's split from the RNIB - but really need information to do this --Blindtimelord 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * further info on seperation?

Someone has removed large portions of this article - namely in the RNIB split section and trivia, plus the school motto, which if I can recall from offical school records was 'they can because they think they can'... or has New College changed that also? --Blindtimelord I would further ask one Cathywright to stop in her removal of data from this article. Her removals are making a biased article. This article, like all encyclopedic articles, should should not only the bad sides, but the possitives too. Furthermore, staff at NCW have informed me of the RNIB issues. They should remain, otherwise why should there be a section on the 'Split with the RNIB'? --Blindtimelord 20:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Removal of information?

(Blindtimemelord deleted section of talk here):
I think it might be useful to elucidate further on why exactly NCW split from RNIB, as this is a key moment in NCWs' history, and as the article notes, was somewhat drawn out and controversial. It would give the reader further insight knowing exactly why this is so, as currently it only briefly mentions what is a relatively important point. ▪	I have attempted to add some information on NCW's split from the RNIB - but really need information to do this --Blindtimelord 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC) ▪	Worcester has contacted me with some info, which has been included. --Blindtimelord 13:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC) There's one very very big issue in that "as a student" we are not allowed to express our points about the school or is it college no wait.. 6th Form?, The public only see the brightside of the Compound and they don't see the real life s*it that happens and its not right.
 * further info on seperation?
 * EDIT

I think it might be useful to elucidate further on why exactly NCW split from RNIB, as this is a key moment in NCWs' history, and as the article notes, was somewhat drawn out and controversial. It would give the reader further insight knowing exactly why this is so, as currently it only briefly mentions what is a relatively important point. ▪	I have attempted to add some information on NCW's split from the RNIB - but really need information to do this --Blindtimelord 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC) ▪	Worcester has contacted me with some info, which has been included. --Blindtimelord 13:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * further info on seperation?

82.36.99.240 (talk): There's one very very big issue in that "as a student" we are not allowed to express our points about the school or is it college no wait.. 6th Form?, The public only see the brightside of the Compound and they don't see the real life s*it that happens and its not right. Although this is supposed to be for constrctive comments for the article. This person does make a valuable point about NCW. Although it should be pointed out that that is exactly what all schools do.
 * EDIT: Revision as of 21:34, 7 June 2007 (edit) (undo)

Wheelzsc (talk | contribs): ▪	In response to the 'EDIT' comments: I think that any substantiated, valid criticism of NCW ought to be expressed, as most encyclopedic articles on various schools/colleges/institutions include comments on various criticisms, as a means of explaining the overall reputation of the particular place, along with the 'positive' aspects. After all, without such comments, articles would cease to give 'rounded' views and would become pseudo-advertisements. However, these 'negative' aspects ought not be framed in purely subjective terms, eg. 'the courses offered are of a poor standard'. They should, rather, be objectively verifiable, and only communicate said negativity by implication. --Wheelzsc 07:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Revision as of 14:42, 8 June 2007 (edit) (undo)

195.195.201.24 (talk): Talk page blanked
 * Revision as of 18:40, 28 February 2008 (edit) (undo)

195.195.201.24 (talk) talk page blanked again
 * Revision as of 18:40, 28 February 2008 (edit) (undo)

Kudpung (talk | contribs) Er... well that's interesting. Could the events leading to its closure not have been documenyed in this article?--Kudpung (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Revision as of 22:24, 21 June 2009 (edit) (undo)

Kudpung (talk | contribs) Update and Cleanup [edit] This article has several issues. Apart from not having received any significant attention for a very long time (2007), it has been constantly subjected to vandalism. It needs: ▪	Updating to take into account the changes that were to take place in 2007. ▪	Restructuring ▪	Rewriting into encyclopedic tone. ▪	Article and talk page protection. --Kudpung (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC) --Kudpung (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Current revision as of 22:59, 21 June 2009 (edit) (undo)