Talk:Sherwood College

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 10:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Split history section
Need to split the history section Sherwood College nainital into separate page. I have spited the article and would appreciate if it is kept that way. The history article will suffice alone as an article with reference. The history is very detailed and would be making further changes into it when I get time. Ron951 (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The separated history article had absolutely no reliable, secondary sources and is unlikely to have enough to support a separate article. The better solution is to work on bring this one up to WP standards by eliminating the fluff, providing sources and reducing it to only the most notable highlights. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I took a stab at it. It still needs some polish and a lot of reliable secondary sources, but it's much better than it was. I can't believe the amount of puffery that existed! 69.181.249.92 (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * User with IP 69.181.249.92, I understand you have not studied at the school, otherwise you would have not cut down the article, cause everything mentioned is fact not just puffery. As per, notable alumni list is concerned pls. visit the old student website and eminent alumni section all the names mentioned on wiki page have detailed description about each person. The link is put for reference. I will be reverting the alumni list back. Hope you will not fiddle with it. Thank you. Ron951 (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read the reliable sources guidelines to understand why I trimmed the list. These people need to be notable enough for their own WP article, notable enough to have coverage in multiple secondary sources and not just some alumni site. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think in trying to help wikipedia by editing articles you seem to over do your work, which now has started to bother people. Reliable source: A school will not want to tarnish its image and put names of persons as alumni on its website, if they were not associated with the school. Why don't you visit the website and click on eminent sherwoodian section and read for yourself in detail about each individual mentioned. Also, you have linked wrong names in wikipedia, you have linked Prof Gyandera Pandey to a cricketer, A.N. Kidwai (Ahmed Nazir Kidwai) to A.R. Kidwai (Akhlaqur Rahman Kidwai) and Avtar Singh (army personnel) to Awtar Singh (politician) ; as said over doing your work. Wikipedia itself is a secondary, so everything on itself becomes secondary source. If you need primary you can call the school or will give you email id of each individuals and you can verify for yourself. Further, you should visit this link, that features alumni of another school and see for yourself whether all names mentioned are linked with reference or general reference is given at the end. I hope you would not fiddle again on Notable alumni section and would not waste your and my time. Thank you Ron951 (talk) 09:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's own website doesn't matter; policy demands reliable secondary sources not affiliated with the school. If you disagree with the links I've created, then by all means adjust them to point to the correct article or remove them if no such article exists. You can't point to another badly done article as a means to justify making this one sub-standard. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS points out the folly of that arguement. Why don't you work on finding some reliable sources for the rest of the information in the article while you're at it? 69.181.249.92 (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with 69.181.249.92 because what Ron951 fails to provide are reliable secondary sources. Until those can be attributed to all of those "notable alumni" who don't already have articles, they shouldn't be there. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Principal?
The person listed as principal in the infobox and the person said to be the current principal in the "Principal" section are not the same. This may be the result of uncorrected vandalism, or whoever changed one may simply have forgotten to change the other. Can someone knowledgeable fix? ubiquity (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This appears to have been fixed. ubiquity (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)