This article was nominated for deletion on 10 August 2009. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Somerset Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset 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.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Schools B‑class Low‑importance 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 B This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Both this article and Bath Technical School appear to be about the same institution and should therefore be merged.— Rod ^talk 16:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC) reply

It seems so. Kanguole 23:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply

As there were no objections I've now done the merge & Bath Technical School now redirects to this article.— Rod ^talk 12:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC) reply

The article says in the lead (founded 11896) which can't be right ? 1896. Also Guildhall, Bath could be linked.— Rod ^talk 12:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC) reply

All the research done so far indicates that all the Schools were to be moved into a planned extension to the south of the then (1890) Guildhall in the High Street. Link to how the Hall was in 1890- http://www.bathintime.co.uk/image.php?id=411277&idx=15&fromsearch=true. Link to plans of 1891 (Plan for sites adjoining the Guildhall (Technical Schools) 14 March 1891 - http://www.bathintime.co.uk/image.php?id=421071&idx=16&fromsearch=true. Image of extension completed in 1895. http://www.bathintime.co.uk/image.php?id=141681&idx=8&fromsearch=true Image of Technical college at Guildhall in 1929 prior to moving to Upper borough walls.Link- http://www.bathintime.co.uk/image.php?id=140709&idx=7&fromsearch=true. Image of shools layout 1932- http://www.bathintime.co.uk/image.php?id=421065&idx=7&fromsearch=true. All written accounts provided by other contributors to the various schools that originated from the Guildhall support the conclusion reached that 1896 is the nearest verifiable date of the establishment of the City of Bath Technical School. See also Bath School of Art and Design(1894), City of Bath College(1892),[Bath Technical School]](1896 ref. from Publication). It can be said confidently that it is between the period 1892 and 1896 so far. If I can narrow it down further I will. The issue of date is compounded by the constant movements of these fledgling schools since their conception in the 19th century. Francis E Williams ( talk) 15:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks but my query was not a difference of a few years but thousands 11896 will not happen for several millennia.— Rod ^talk 15:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC):::: reply

(edit conflict) Would it not have been simpler to correct my error?, my macular degeneration does not let me see text anymore with both eyes on the same letter. I can now only see text of this size one letter at a time, which is why I find this sort of thing, and the time taken to make my small contributions so very frustrating. Francis E Williams ( talk) 16:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks - that got it.— Rod ^talk 16:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC) reply

If I'd had the source giving me a correct date I would have corrected the date, but I don't have your depth of knowledge of the history and hadn't found the sources you give above. In the infobox it still says established in the 1920s and the 3rd para has dates in the 1880s, 1890s, 1910s etc so I'm unsure what should be given as the date of foundation.— Rod ^talk 17:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I`m not sure which date is correct myself yet, as research has 1884 as a possible contender (School for boys occupying Brogham Hayes converted Barracks). However; as a "Technical School" properly named, 1892-6 time frame is right. With this recent new research undertaken I can now correct the article, provided of course that my conclusion is correct, and that suitable Web Based references can be found. Regarding date correction: I referred to my duplication of the "1" in the 1896 date, not the definitive date of origin of the school. Francis E Williams ( talk) 18:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC) reply

I have assessed this article as Start/Low, it is quite a long article, but is lacking reliable references, and the History section could better be represented as prose. More detailed information of the school in its current state would be useful as well, as the bulk of the article is about history, for suggestions of what could be included see WP:WPSCH/AG. TheAuthor22 ( talk) 18:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello, I am the main contributor to the article. In your assessment I think you missed the fact that this is a historical school. It has some significance in Bath England, and schools in general in the U.K. Its history shows it is one created before the neccessary education acts were put in place for state schools. Its early history relates to an attempt by the British Educational establishment to encourage the population into a more Technical outlook on life in the 19th century as new technologies began to develop. This technological advantage was felt neccessary by the Goverment to maintain world dominance for the continued expansion of the British Empire.

The school was one of the first of its type. The history is important, as is the way that such schools have evolved since then. Its history has been researched thoroughly, and most of the records are archived in both the local authority archive, the county archive, and a small amount in hational archives. (see refs.) These, together with archives in the Bath central reference library and local Bath directories have been used for this internet based publication. The local education authority actually destroyed so much of the information that could have been used as futher references in 1970. All that remain in the public domain are in the article. Unless we can invent a time machine it will remain like this. By the way, what references are you saying are unnreliable?

The school ceased to be in 1970. There is no current content that can be added. The Schools that evolved from the ashes of this school are also recorded on Wikipedia and are linked to this school, they form other articles on Wikipedia. If you check out the references for the Guildhall Extension in early 20th century, you will find about 13 technical schools were contained in this large 3 floor extension. Reliable and consistent sources have been used. I have access to much more archive material, but I cannot use it because the rules of Wikipedia prevent me. The publications that exisited are not available online, nor are they able to be published without great expense to the group of archivists that remain active.

I would like to allow access to that archive material, but again, it is a private archive, only contributions from ex-pupils are allowable. I have no intention of proposing that all and sundry be invited to cause the kind of chaos that occurs here on Wikipedia. The rules of Wikipedia are very specific about use of copyright material. I Hope this has enlightened you of the situation. Francis E Williams ( talk) 21:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you for drawing those facts to my attention, I have had a further read of the article, and re-assessed it as "B/Low". The article is quite long with informative and well referenced content (I am aware that previously I stated that the article could do with referencing, but this as a mistake, sorry!). In the review I also mentioned that the article would be a good candidate for a peer review, as it seems to be mostly complete, which then may enable it to attain "Good Article" status. If you would like the article re-assessed by a different assessor, please list the article in Wikipedia:WPSCH/A#Assessment_requests. Sorry for my incorrect assessment first time around! TheAuthor22 ( talk) 13:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Hello again, I have no problems with the comments you made, we all have busy days. I would not expect you to have the time to research what has been undertaken by many ex-pupils teachers and old headmasters over the last 50 or so years. I was a relatively "modern" pupil myself (1959 onward). The article was the subject of a review as a candidate for AFD, it survived that review. It was then re-written with the aid of a senior Wiki editor into the format is is now and was assessed as "start". I have today retitled the history section to chronology, and have added sub-section headings at appropriate points in history. There are only a few (what Wiki terms "defunct") schools in Somerset, it may not comply with WP:MOS that applies to currently active schools. But if I joined up all the sections it would be most arduous for the reader to wade through the whole lot to reach content of interest. Perhaps leave the prose tag if you wish, somone might have the time and knowledge to rearrange it accordingly. Best regards. Francis E Williams ( talk) 13:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC) reply

I have stitched it into larger sections. Hopefully it has been sucessfull. Francis E Williams ( talk) 18:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC). reply

I have just been through the alumni list converting external links into references and made it alphabetical. A couple were citeed to LinkedIn profiles which are not publicly accessible so I have added citation needed tags. According to WP:NLIST they should have a reference either in their article or on this list which says they attended the school. A more worrying aspect is that all but one entry now show as redlinks. There may be problems with showing they meet the notability requirements. They should really have articles written before they appear in the list. See also WP:ALMAMATER & WP:BLP.— Rod ^talk 12:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC) reply

The building with 32 corners existing 1816-1896 mentioned at A La Ronde does have an connex to the Technical School? -- Helium4 ( talk) 10:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Research in to "The annals of Bath" do indicate that in 1816 a building of circular construction stood on the site of "Weymouth House" in Bath.[ [1]] appears to confirm this. Billy from Bath ( talk) 15:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Bath & N.E. Somerset records office hold the following register details for Weymouth House and the National School built on the same site in Bath.[ [2]] Billy from Bath ( talk) 14:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Article "The Duke of Kingsto's estates" [ [3]] provides historical data with regard Lord Weymouth's house and the changes of ownership and development in that area of Bath. Billy from Bath ( talk) 15:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on City of Bath Technical School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716182426/http://www.medicalheritage.co.uk/Bath/RUH.htm to http://www.medicalheritage.co.uk/Bath/RUH.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on City of Bath Technical School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090410040740/http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/BathNES/leisureandculture/localhistoryheritage/familyhistory/ to http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/BathNES/leisureandculture/localhistoryheritage/familyhistory/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC) reply