Talk:De La Salle North Catholic High School

Blanket reversion of Tedder's edits
Note: I've made some form and style edits and deleted one section since I posted the diff below. Katr67 Please discuss this reversion of tedder's work here.

I was surprised to see tedder's edits completely rolled back. They seem to be entirely reasonable and in keeping with the guidelines laid out at WikiProject Schools. Deleting the unnecessary fields from an overinclusive template seem especially reasonable. Other edits included the removal of a link from a single year, which is supported by the MOS, and the removal of a section that at first glance looks like an advertistement. I think a more reasonable approach to tedder's editing would be to replace any of the sections deemed "necessary"--if they can be cited. Katr67 (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There needs to be a balance struck here, some of that content needs to go or be improved. -- ForgottenManC (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My suggestions: CIP own section? (not background); rm CIP schedule, not notable; rm subjective phrases like "little variety" and "after only two years"; add a unrefsec tag for sports section. -- ForgottenManC (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've asked to join this discussion, but s/he has not. I'm going to restore some of tedder's edits, starting with removing fields from the userbox that aren't likely to get used. If for some reason they are needed in the future, they are easily added. Katr67 (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In answer to the editing note in the infobox, the Knights are 2A. Katr67 (talk) 21:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks- that's the standard ordering I've been using for schools (see this). I added the size. tedder (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think removing empty InfoBox fields that are not even visible in the aricle is over-the-top editing. Those fields are likely never to be filled if removed as most editors do not even know what fields are available.  Removing fields likely to never be used makes sense, but removing pretty much every empty field seems a tad heavy-handed.  Do we really need to worry about how long the article in in Edit mode?  That said, I have not changed any edits, I just hope editing efforts on wikipedia are put to better use in the future. EagleFan (talk) 11:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My feeling on removing infobox fields is (a) they change and (b) most are unneccessary. That's why I came up with my own list of infobox fields that were apropos to schools in the US (and especially in Oregon). I've modified the list as I go along, but it seems like a good start. Even if an editor doesn't know a field exists, there's nothing stopping them from adding data to the main body and another editor later merging it into the infobox. In any case, that my main intent wasn't to remove the infobox fields- what about the rest of the content on the page? I have trouble believing the class schedule and discussion of non-notable sports 'accomplishments' is encyclopedic, for instance. tedder (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * EagleFan, I find it a bit of bad faith to characterize these "editing efforts" as bad. Many of those fields are redundant, or not applicable to this particular school/region. Thanks for replying. I look forward to further communication with you. Katr67 (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No bad faith here. The edits did not remove fields that were "redundant or not applicable to this particular school/region", they removed pretty much every empty field.  I find that to be a bit much.  Removing postcode, postalcode, province, decile, houses, and colours (which were already removed, I believe) certainly makes sense for a U.S. school.  However, Fields such as accreditation, enrollment, free label/text 0-5, picture, caption, native name, oversight, and founder (just to pick out a few) are quite useful.  At least if they were still there new editors would see the empty slot and fill in the info.  There is almost zero chance of enhancing the article if the fields are removed since most editors would not have the available fields memorized or handy.  The fields must be typed/spelled the right way to work.  Again, since removing those fields made no change to the actual article, it seems like a misuse of an editor's time, especially with the vandlaism issues we all fight.EagleFan (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) EagleFan, we disagree on whether most of the template fields should remain or not. I feel only the basic ones should remain, and not fields like the freetext, and especially not redundant fields. I'll repeat what I said above- a new editor is likely to put information in as free text if they don't see an infobox field or understand how to use it. So let's set that aside. What was the reasoning for re-adding the text edits I made? tedder (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not intend to change edits outside the InfoBox. Probably never scrolled down far enough to see them.  I agree with removing redundant fields.  I still disagree with removing non-repetitive InfoBox fields, and free text fields are the most usefull of all.EagleFan (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on De La Salle North Catholic High School. 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/20090125021614/http://www.northwestaccreditation.org:80/schools/accredited.html to http://www.northwestaccreditation.org/schools/accredited.html

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 16:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on De La Salle North Catholic High 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/20080106140133/http://www.morethanadreambook.com/ to http://www.morethanadreambook.com/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)