Talk:Holy Name of Mary Catholic Secondary School

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Victuallers 00:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The school is often lauded for its high academic standards" could this be removed or could supporting evidence be provided please? It seems that the statement is made by someone who knows the school and it may constitute advertising rather than objective comment from an independent third party. No offence is intended to the school or its staff in this comment.Spiorad (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to this is that after having taught some of these young ladies in summer school, they were characteristically above the level of students from other schools. They also showed a deeper sense of religious devotion, and respect for authority. --Paul EJ King (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The statement, "The school is often lauded for its high academic standards" was removed at an earlier date, as this referred to the original Holy Name of Mary School (the request for supporting evidence was dated before the opening of the renamed Holy Name of Mary Secondary School in Brampton) and because the current EQAO and Fraser Institute rankings for the renamed, relocated school do not support this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.27.124 (talk) 05:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Rating[edit]

I have set the initial rating for this article at "Stub" as it needs formatting and external referencing. PKT (talk) 15:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raised to Start class! PKT(alk) 18:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Former Crest[edit]

The previous inclusion of the former crest of Holy Name of Mary School violates copyright law, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holy_Name_of_Mary_CS_logo.gif The crest contains intellectual property owned by Holy Name of Mary College School. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.72.69 (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Star article[edit]

Summary: The Toronto Star article referred to in the article's introduction does not reflect current data and therefore belongs in History section. Mickeycanuck (aka 99.254.17.230 - as per information contained in his/her request to unblock IP) has repeatedly added the following information(or a variation thereof) to the introduction to this article, "In a Toronto Star article published in 2007, Holy Name of Mary School was considered one of the finest schools in Ontario." This information is not current, as the referenced article is four years old, it does not reflect the current data from EQAO and Fraser Institute rankings for Holy Name of Mary Secondary School, and in fact referred to the Holy Name of Mary Secondary School's predecessor, Holy Name of Mary School. As such, any reference to the Toronto Star article should be included only in the History section, and then only if qualified by a statement, "The EQAO and Fraser Institute Ranking sections below provide current data on Holy Name of Mary Secondary School." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.27.124 (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Name of Mary Catholic Secondary School is the same school as the Holy Name mentioned in the article. The school did not "close" - it relocated. It is fair to put the quotation in the introduction. Mikeycanuck (talk) 03:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As previously stated, the information is not current, as the referenced article is four years old, it does not reflect the current data from EQAO and Fraser Institute rankings for Holy Name of Mary Secondary School. As such, it should be located in the History section, with a qualifying statement advising readers to refer to the EQAO and Fraser Institute Ranking sections. 174.89.27.124 (talk) 03:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mikeycanuck (aka 99.254.17.230) removed the reference to current data in the History section that followed the Toronto Star article statement, stating "Readers will get to the Fraser Institute rankings soon enough. It's needless clutter.." By that reasoning, there is no need to mention the Toronto Star article in the introductory section of the article, since it appears "soon enough" in the History section. 174.89.27.124 (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The Fraser Institute rankings are not the only or best arbiter of what makes a fine school. Where are HNMCS or SMCS' Fraser Rankings. Oh yeah, they don't have them since they're private. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeycanuck (talk • contribs) 04:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mikeycanuck (aka 99.254.17.230) removed the Toronto Star article reference from the History section "as it appears in introduction". In fact, the reference to the article belongs in the History section, not the introduction, as the referenced article is four years old and does does not reflect the current data, as outlined in the EQAO or Fraser Institute Rankings. 174.89.27.124 (talk) 04:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mikeycanuck has not responded on the Discussion page regarding the placement of the reference to the Toronto Star article. As the article is four years old, and does not reflect the current EQAO data or Fraser Institute Rankings for Holy Name of Mary Secondary School, the reference belongs in the History section, not the introduction. 174.89.27.124 (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond. I can't always edit 24 hours a day! :)Mikeycanuck (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected as much, we're both human after all! :) I'll check back in a week or so and thank you for working with me to resolve these differences of opinion. 174.89.27.124 (talk) 05:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any response from Mikeycanuck, once again moving the reference to the Toronto Star article from the introduction to the History section. The mention of "In a Toronto Star article published in 2007, Holy Name of Mary School was considered one of the finest schools in Ontario.", if left in the introduction, may give the reader the incorrect impression this statement reflects the school's current ranking, which is not borne out in the school's current EQAO and Fraser Institute Rankings. As a compromise, will not include the qualifying statement, "The EQAO and Fraser Institute Ranking sections below provide current data on Holy Name of Mary Secondary School." in the History section. 174.89.27.124 (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2010 school newsletter listed 264 students on the honour roll. [1] This represents approximately 31% of the 851 students enrolled. This is a further indication the current academic levels do not reflect the reference to "one of the finest schools in Ontario." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.27.124 (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My experience in 30 years of education leads me to think that one third of a school on the honour roll is a high number. Some schools are harder than others. What is the school's criteria? This is an important qualifier. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeycanuck (talk • contribs) 05:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honour roll criteria: To qualify for the honour roll students must attain 80% or higher in the courses taken at Holy Name of Mary. The following criteria must also be met at each grade level: In grade 9 and 10 the top 8 marks must average 80% or higher In grade 11 the top 8 courses must average 80% or higher In grade 12 the top 6 marks must average 80% or higher All courses must be taken at Holy Name of Mary during the regular school year. Summer and night school courses do not count towards honour roll. [2]70.31.94.232 (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mikeycanuck states, "Some schools are harder than others. What is the school's criteria? This is an important qualifier." The school's honour roll criteria shown above is comparable to other schools. In fact, Loretto Abbey's criteria is "harder" as no one course can be lower than 70%.70.31.94.232 (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.dpcdsb.org/NR/rdonlyres/45B6934E-B207-4EF6-9112-6DFAD7CE9BD6/70012/HNMFallNewsletterNov2011.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.dpcdsb.org/HNMRY/General+Information/Student+Awards.htm

Former location of school[edit]

The school moved from Mississauga to Brampton in 2008. Disambiguation has been added to the article and a reference to the move has been added to the History section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.87.17 (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mikeycanuck: You are invited to enter into a discussion on this Talk page if you feel the addition of Disambiguation and the current reference in the History section to the change in location is not appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.87.17 (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the reference to the Mississauga campus should be in the introduction, as for msot of the school's existence it was in Mississauga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeycanuck (talk • contribs) 23:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mikeycanuck: In an earlier edit, you justified the inclusion of the location with, "The information on the move form its original campus belong in the introduction. It is important for readers to know that this is the same school that had been in Mississauga that was relocated." The addition of the disambiguation removes the need for this in the introduction. The History section contains all of the background information, in chronological order, including the reference to the Mississauga location. How is this piece of information any more important or pertinent than the rest of the information in the History section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.87.17 (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some historical information is of such seminal importance that it belongs in the introduction. For instance, the date of establishment and the founding religious order. You have not justified why the important information of a relatively recent relocation is not relevant for the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeycanuck (talk • contribs) 01:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, the lead (introduction) of the article, "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview." The relocation should not "stand alone" but rather should be in context with the other information surrounding the move, and therefore belongs in the History section.

Yes, exactly. Mentioning the very important fact of the relocation is a relevant introduction to what will follow in the article and is further explained in detail in the history. It is one of the most striking elements describing the school. It is in no way a "stand alone" fact". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeycanuck (talk • contribs) 01:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mikeycanuck: The edit you made was, "It should not be confused with Holy Name of Mary College School, a private school located on its former campus in Mississauga." The location of the school in this sentence is almost an afterthought, with the emphasis seemingly placed on clearing up any potential confusion. As previously stated, the disambiguation addresses this point. If you feel so strongly about including the Mississauga reference, would you agree to a compromise, such as: "Holy Name of Mary Catholic Secondary School is an all-girls regional high school in Brampton, Ontario, Canada founded by the Felician Sisters. It moved from Mississauga to Brampton in 2008". ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.87.17 (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I believe distingushing it from the school presently on its former campus is important in the outset and is important enough to justify it in the introduction and elaborate in the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeycanuck (talk • contribs) 03:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael: Disambiguation is the accepted way to eliminate confusion. The question of the school's former location is dealt with in the History section. Beyond your belief, on what basis is the inclusion of the location "important enough to justify it in the introduction" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.87.17 (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No "confusion" is created by having this important information in the introduction and elaborated in the history. It is an essential fact to know about the school and belongs in the introduction. The relocation and posible confusion with another institution is essential to understanding the school. I disagree with your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeycanuck (talk • contribs) 04:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be at an impasse, as I disagree with your edit, and we have not been able to reach an agreement. I would like to request editorial assistance; do you agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.87.17 (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Referred to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. 174.93.87.17 (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, guys, I'm here from the 3O board. I'd say that the location change is significant enough to include in the article, but I don't really like Mikeycanuck's wording of it; I'd prefer something more along the lines of 179's suggested compromise a few posts ago. Perhaps something like, "Holy Name of Mary Catholic Secondary School is an all-girls regional high school in Brampton, Ontario, Canada founded by the Felician Sisters. Originally located in Mississauga, it relocated to Brampton in 2008." The reason that I think it's important enough to mention in the article is because a major identifier of schools is where they're located; naturally, there are only so many plausible school names, and they get duplicated all the time; at least where I'm from, it's usual to say something like "St. Foo, Barville" to make it clear what school one is talking about. Thus, IMO, the school's change in location is significant enough to warrant a mention in the lead. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree to the changed wording per WP:30 whereby the relocation is mentioned in the introduction, as was my original edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeycanuck (talk • contribs) 23:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wording suggested by Writ Keeper (thank you!) incorporated in the lead. 174.93.87.17 (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Holy Name of Mary Catholic Secondary 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:

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) 07:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Holy Name of Mary Catholic Secondary 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:

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) 22:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holy_Name_of_Mary_Catholic_Secondary_School&oldid=1198872458"