Talk:West Exe School

Schools Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Devon Low‑importance

	Devon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Devon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Devon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DevonWikipedia:WikiProject DevonTemplate:WikiProject DevonDevon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Devon may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Controversy section edit

Latest comment: 2 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion

This section appears to be dated, has undue weight and the citations are mostly dead links. It is also not best practice to even have a controversy section. I almost deleted the whole thing. I'll leave it a while with citation requests but would support any other editor who wishes to just delete it. I think the WP:ONUS would be on editors seeking to retain it to show how this is relevant for an encyclopaedic page page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Drplent and WikiDan61 I noticed a back and forth over this section. This is the place to have a chat about it. I think there is a case to remove it, but we can't edit war when another editor has objected to the removal. I do agree that the information is dated, and I don't think a food fight 8 years ago is really due for the article. However if there are secondary sources showing it was underperforming, we might make mention of those. Thoughts? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Drplent and Sirfurboy: I'll agree to the removal of the controversy section. I was not willing to let it happen without a discussion, but I agree with the points made here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Done WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic