Talk:Bishop Kearney High School (Irondequoit, New York)

Untitled
Bishop Kearney is an all-girls Catholic high school located in Brooklyn, New York, not Rochester. While their may also be a Kearney in Rochester, this article is linked from the "Kings County" high school list, which is Brooklyn, New York City. Bishop Kearney has its own website, http://www.bishopkearneyhs.org/
 * Then that would be an incorrect link from the list of high schools in New York City. This article is about Bishop Kearney high school in Rochester (well, technically in the suburb of Irondequoit). A different page could be created for the similarly named high school in Brooklyn, but that would require making a new page for the other school, moving this one and disambiguating. R Calvete 00:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

merge
I redirected the dupe/incorrectly titled Bishop kearney highschool here. THere was some un-wikified content which, if not a copyvio, could be merged here. --W.marsh 18:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That article was about a different Bishop Kearney High School than the one discussed in the article here. R Calvete 20:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Revert
I reverted the following text: ''Jake Groszewski, a transfer student at the start of the 2005 schoolyear made significant contributions to the Bishop Kearney Kings Varsity Baseball team. He lead the team with two homeruns.''

While Jake may have made some contribution, he's not relevant to this article. --Disavian 01:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bishop Kearney High School (Irondequoit, New York). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090325092326/http://www.css-msa.org:80/search.php? to http://www.css-msa.org/search.php/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:39, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Notable alumni
IPv6s in the range 2604:6000:6F43:4100:598C:FB44:319B:D1C3/64 (e.g., 195d, d1c3) have been adding content to the Notable alumni section without sourcing, and edit-warring to keep it in. Please add citations to reliable sources for this content. It has already been removed twice, and reinserted twice. Per Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy, all unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * And what exactly do you want to see sourced? This is a list of notable alumni of the school. The entries have Wikipedia articles to show their notability, and the articles I have checked contain sources confirming that the subjects attended the school. The norm for high school alumni lists is to not require attendance sources when they are given in the subjects' articles. It does not improve the encyclopedia to remove perfectly valid entries. I would suggest that if you insist on having the attendance sources in this article also that you copy them over yourself rather than blanking the section. If some of the alumni articles do not contain attendance sources their subjects' entries in the school article can be tagged as needing sources individually, specifying the need for an attendance source, or deleted. Meters (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I also find it somewhat odd that you chose not to remove three entries that also do not have sources showing their attendance in this article . One of those entries does not even have an attendance source in his article. Meters (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. All entries now have sources in their article or this page, except one plausible the has a cn. One entry removed as it had no individual article to show notability Meters (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , That was fast; thanks for the three entries you added. I've added the one for Rene Ingoglia. Note that the issue here is Wikipedia's verifiability policy, not notability. Content added to the article does not have to be notable, only the topic itself does. That said, it's an additional mark of relevance and avoidance of trivia sections that the entries listed are all notable in their own right, so that is a plus point; it's just not a requirement. As for the one entry you removed, you are welcome to restore it, as there is no need to have an individual article for it, as long as it is supported by a reference. Some guidelines on list length might apply in theory, but this list is not so long that it would be apply here, imho.
 * The fact that other articles may have sources about their high school attendance is a good thing, that means that proving verifiability here is trivial: just copy the reference over, no research required. However, it doesn't always work out that just because some other article appears to be referenced, this one doesn't need to be. The first one that I happened to check was Tom Keegan, and it turns out that although there was indeed a reference there about Bishop Kearney, clicking it led to a mostly blank page with no alumni listed. I tagged that ref as failed verification. The upshot is, that unlike what we assumed, "Tom Keegan" can't be left without a reference at this article based on the theory that sourcing it at some other article is sufficient. As far as "not remov[ing] three entries", not sure what you mean, but if you find some unreferenced stuff, feel free to remove it per WP:PROVEIT.
 * A couple of things you said above make me think you might be relying on WP:ALUMNI section of the WikiProject Schools/Article advice page, which says: "When alumni have their own articles in mainspace, it is not necessary for their notability to be referenced"; but there are two problems with this:
 * It comes from an essay, not a policy or guideline; that is, it is just the opinion of some editor(s). Anybody can write an essay here, and say more or less whatever they want. It has little to no weight on how we should edit.
 * In fact, the statement itself makes no sense, and is contrary to policy, as WP:N.
 * So, basically, you can forget about that essay; you're already doing the right thing by adding references to the Alumni section, that's the main thing. Let's just source the rest of them. There's no big emergency so no particular deadline, but if you find some that are hard to source, just stick at cn tag on them (like you did in that one case already) and let's get them sourced within a reasonable time. If nobody can find anything after some time, then they should be dropped. Are we good? P.S., I changed the section title, this one seems more appropriate. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please. I know it's trivial to copy sources over. That's why I suggested that you do so rather than simply removing everything. Or did you not even bother to check the articles first? if you had the articles and saw that the attendances were already sourced you should not have simply deleted the entries. I don't see any need to add sources to the ones that are already sourced in their articles. so I'm not going to do so. The norm for school articles is not to do so. Again, if you insist on having the sources in the article also then copy them yourself. Some essays have more weight than others. One that is generally followed by the project that deals with high school articles is not something that should be simply dismissed as an essay that should be ignored. Perhaps you should participate in some of the schools projects discussions before deciding that you are going to overrule the normal procedures.
 * And you are completely mistaken if you believe that notability is not a concern for inclusion in a list of notable alumni. Notability is not a concern for general content in an article, but it certainly is for content in a list where the inclusion criteria include notability. Suggesting that Henry Juszkiewicz should be reinstated is simply wrong. We do not include alumni without articles unless they would clearly qualify for an article if one were written. CEOs are not presumed notable. Meters (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to you not including Juszkiewicz, that's perfectly acceptable policy-wise; I was merely pointing out that it's also acceptable to include him, if you want, given that numerous reliable sources are available to verify this (here and here, for example). If there's consensus for a particular article to require notability as a list criterion, then that's fine, don't include him, but that's just a local consensus that applies there, not everywhere.
 * As far as this comment:
 * sorry, you can suggest all you want, but that's just not the way it works. (And even so, I *did* add one.) People who add stuff are the ones burdened with finding a source for it; anything unsourced can be removed by anybody; that's core policy. I'm not trying to lobotomize your article, nor do I intend to. I'm pointing out that there needs to be sources provided&mdash;that's a completely uncontroversial statement. I realize people have RL issues, furthermore there's WP:NODEADLINE, so there's no stopwatch ticking, and you can relax, enjoy the leftovers, and wrap your presents. But if there's no action by somebody (doesn't have to be you) at some point, then per policy, I (or anyone) can remove unsourced content.
 * As far as the essay, certainly some get more attention than others, for various reasons. That doesn't mitigate the fact that there's a pecking order in the "rules" that go from non-negotiable (legal, libel, T&S issues), to strictly followed (policies), to recommended (guidelines), and then supplemental pages attached to guidelines like Help and Info and How-to pages, and at the bottom of the heap are essays. I'm not saying essays should be ignored, but if you think an essay is going to hold sway over a policy when they are in conflict, then you better refresh your memory of how that all works.
 * Afaic, I'm willing to just let this all be until next year, if you are. Happy holidays, Mathglot (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC) For the third time, if you wan tot insist that
 * It's not my article, and I did not add the entries. I just did some of the work you apparently couldn't be bothered to do yourself. I don't need your condescension. Again, and for the third time, if you insist on adding sources for attendance that are already in the subjects' articles then feel free to do so. I'm not going to delete the entries if no-one adds those refs. Either you did not bother to check if the sources were in the articles, or you  knew that they were and still deleted them rather than copying the references. Either way, I'm not impressed.  Meters (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not my article, and I did not add the entries. I just did some of the work you apparently couldn't be bothered to do yourself. I don't need your condescension. Again, and for the third time, if you insist on adding sources for attendance that are already in the subjects' articles then feel free to do so. I'm not going to delete the entries if no-one adds those refs. Either you did not bother to check if the sources were in the articles, or you  knew that they were and still deleted them rather than copying the references. Either way, I'm not impressed.  Meters (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)