Talk:Peters Township High School

IP edits of April 28, 2013
Please provide referencing to the additions you have made before reinserting them. The people you have added either are of dubious notability or their is no apparent connection to the school. The stuff about the movies is just plain doubtful. You need to make your additions verifiable please. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Content regarding a motion picture
One editor has repeatedly tried to add content regarding this school being used as a location for a minor motion picture. I have removed said content numerous times as poorly sourced (first none, then IMDb, then two separate non reliable sites, one of which you pay to add content to).

Upon further thought, this material is inappropriate in the article in its current form no matter the sourcing. A quick search indicates this school is over 100 years old. To mention one single thing that occurred in recent years is a violation of both WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. I really don't understand the problem with the sourcing. A movie was shot on location in and around Pittsburgh and the local paper made no mention of it? That would be a reliable source. However, sourcing does not solve the issue. Adding a history section and including a line in it about the movie shoot would. John from Idegon (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Link to guideline
Can you provide me a link to the guideline that require the city and state be separate links? Thanks Niteshift36 (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:WPSCH/AG Keep in mind that linking state names has long been held not to be over linking. This is English Wikipedia,  not US Wikipedia. John from Idegon (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I found on my own and I don't see where it mandates separate links. In fact, I can't even see where it suggests it as the preferred method. Overlinking and piped linking are on the same page. While it's not improper to link the state, it's not necessary to make it separate. A link to a generic article about the state really doesn't increase understanding of the subject school. It does, however, make it more annoying when using a smart phone or tablet and you touch the wrong part of a series of smaller links put together. While this may not be "US Wikipedia", most people looking up a specific US high school will already be familiar with the states. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you stopped participating.... first you claimed it was the guideline that said to do it. Now your position is "we've always done it that way". That may be true, but it doesn't make it policy or guideline. Just because someone started the practice in say 2005 and others have aped it along the way, thinking it's a guideline doesn't make it one. For example, I noted how it becomes more finicky when using a smartphone or tablet, neither of which was a consideration in 2001 when Wikipedia was founded. I also asked how separating the links adds to the understanding of this article. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Guidelines are only descriptions of commonly held concensus. The fact that it has been that way in this article for a loooong time also shows a concensus. That fact that it is that way on virtually all US school articles also shows that. It's also done that way on settlement articles. And I edit exclusively from a smallish phone (a Samsung S4) and have no trouble with it (what does give me fits is how close the diff button and the rollback button are on the watchlist). Also worth noting is that on the 5000 or so school articles and 3000 or so settlement articles on my watchlist, the only editor that has ever made this change is you. Sorry, but I just don't see it. John from Idegon (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * First, I didn't set a deadline for you. You reverted AFTER I had responded to you on your talk page and made no response except in the edit summary, so it gave the appearance that you had stopped responding. The fact remains that your initial claim was that the guideline said to do it. It doesn't. Length of time isn't a consensus. I've seen articles deleted that were years old, so claiming a specific link it now consensus because nobody ever stopped to realize that the link wasn't needed is wrong-headed. Once again, just because some started doing it and everyone just mirrored it doesn't mean it is correct. I'll ask the basic question again: How does linking the state separately actually improve the understanding of this topic? Overlinking does tell us that large geographic features shouldn't be linked. I'd submit to you that most readers looking up a specific high school in suburban Pennsylvania are already familiar with the idea of states and most likely PA itself. The very, very rare one who isn't will look up McMurray and if they're still unsure, find the PA link there. It's also worth noting that the city and state are separate links in the infobox (which I disagree with, but that separate), so it really sort of negates your need to have it linked alone a second time. And stop warning me about "edit warring" when you've made 3 reverts yourself. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * , no disrespect but IMO, your arguements are not compelling. I see no further point in continuing so I am done. You do not have consensus for your change. Your options going forward are:


 * 1) Leave neutral notification at the talk pages of the projects following this article inviting participants to the discussion.
 * 2) Request WP:3O.
 * 3) Change the applicable guideline to your preferred version, which I will immediately revert and call for a WP:RFC.
 * 4) Drop it.


 * Please note that none of those options are reverting this article to your preferred version. You changed longstanding content. I object to your change. Whether you agree with my objections or not, default is your change is out until a CONSENSUS is formed. I have this page watch listed. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You keep saying long standing, as if that's some sort of guideline.  Your first argument was shown to be not true,  then you changed to "that's how we've always done it". Now your final move is to essentially order me not to change it. (Here are your options and changing isn't one of them ). You've really engaged in no discussion or offered any support of your position in terms of policy, guideline or even an essay.  And you've refused to answer the basic question here, which does have a guideline behind it.   Niteshift36 (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The applicable policy is WP:CONSENSUS. The end. John from Idegon (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Where was the discussion that lead to that consensus? After all, the policy you just cited says:

"Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Right now, you have one lemming going over the cliff and a bunch just following and not asking why? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Will you please leave this alone until more people participate? You seem to fail to grasp that failing concensus, the status quo stays. You don't like my arguement, I don't like yours. There is no concensus to change or keep, so status quo stays. I'll notify the involved projects. John from Idegon (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * One more time.... first you claimed it was required by the guideline. That turned out to be untrue. Then you switched to "it's consensus", yet can't show where the discussion is that achieved that consensus. There is no policy that requires the status quo to stay, especially when your argument for keeping it that was has either been based on false claims or simply "because it's always been". The state is linked separately in the info box. Can you tell me one legitimate reason why it needs to be linked separately a second time that doesn't involved relying on "it's always been that way"? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really see a compelling argument either way. Before seeing this discussion I was under the impression (for reasons I do not recall) that linking the state probably wasn't necessary for school articles. EyeTripleE (talk) 05:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Coordinates and Movie
I updated the coordinates for the new building but the embedded map doesn't seem to be displaying them properly. Additionally, the movie filmed at the school is an important part of the school's history, with many students who participated in it, as well as because the movie starred popular actors/actresses. Most people in the local area know about that movie, and it is important to document that occurrence for the same reason that notable alumni are documented. Even though the school itself is very old, it has grown a lot in the last 30-40 years. There isn't much else that has happened that would fill up an entire history section, although that could be added. I judge the importance of the movie to be enough to deserve a mention in the school's history. I included a few different citations (given the past criticisms), the official trailer even shows the facade of the school, at 0:20. 63.139.174.233 (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.174.233 (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)