Talk:Roman Catholic High School

President/Rector
Father Paul Brandt is definitely leaving Roman and will no longer be the President.

http://www.cst-phl.com/060420/second.html

And from what I've heard, Father Joseph Bongard will be taking over the position. I haven't been able to find a source for that yet though, so I won't make the change just yet. If anyone finds a source, go ahead and fix this.

--Magic 04:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Found a source; now updated. http://archdiocese-phl.org/clerical.htm
 * --Magic 04:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What's with the listing of "Terry give-me-your-ID Kane under president/rector with no time served... It doesn't seem to fit the chronology... vandalism? Irish Wolfhound (talk) 03:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Done
taken care of. 205.238.205.220 09:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep looks better now. I'm going to pull of the tag but I'll keep rearranging things if alot more info gets put in. --Spout 20:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up
There's a lot of text in this article, but no visible structure, no use of headings etc.. You might want to look at some of the featured articles, such as to get ideas for how you might be able to present the information. --DogsBreakfast 16:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Caulfield Grammar School
 * University of Michigan
 * Michigan State University

Photo of the Building
It would be nice to see the photo of the building in the article. It would bring back a lot of memories to us alumni.Wikited (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Bp Bransfield
Roman Catholic High School for Boys says Bp Bransfield attended Roman, but his page, Michael Joseph Bransfield, says the bishop attended St. John the Baptist High School. Eagle4000 (talk) 03:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Good catch, but I will have to do a little more digging. He may have attended Roman after they closed St. John's.  Jlivewell (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC).
 * I have confirmed on the Bishops website that he did attend St. Johns and Roman.Jlivewell (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Movement of tag
I've [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_Catholic_High_School&diff=655887189&oldid=655884719 restored the refimprove tag] to where it was properly placed at the outset. BMK moved it. Without supplying any edit summary. I would ask him to not do that again. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've put it back where it will do the most good. Tags such as that are not for the reader, they are post-it notes from editor to editor, and should not get in the way of the reader's use of the article.  Remember, the MoS is not mandatory, it's a guideline and not policy.  You've really got to start to understand that, because you have a history of not quite getting it -- it's a rule, yes, but it's not one which has to be followed all the time. I understand that this can be diffficult for you to grok, but that's the way it is -- you cannot go around edit-warring over MoS. BMK (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Template:Refimprove states, under Usage; How to Use:
 * "'Manual of Style/Lead section states that templates like this one should go immediately after the hatnote and before the infobox.'"


 * And WP:LEADORDER states: "the lead section may contain optional elements presented in the following order: disambiguation links (dablinks), maintenance tags, infoboxes ..."


 * Which accords with WP:SECTIONORDER.


 * Similarly, Template messages/Cleanup states: "Unless otherwise noted, the cleanup messages, or tags, should be placed at the top—before other templates, images, or infoboxes, but after hatnotes".


 * This is a function of consensus. A core wp principle.


 * The last time I recall interacting with you, here, we ran into the same general issue ... BMK didn't like the consensus format, and wanted to edit against consensus. And you edit-warred against consensus - as reflected in that discussion. I would have thought that you would have taken something from the input of the other editors in that conversation. That's not how WP works. Epeefleche (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't refer to me in the third person, if you want to talk to me, talk to me.You grossly mistate my position. I am not in general opposed to MoS, however I do recognize when it's not as effective as it could be.  Post-it notes from editor to editor shouldn't be displayed where they get in the way of the reader, they should go where the editors who may be interested in them will see them.  In this case, a reflimprove tag should go by the references, not at the top. BMK (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Epeefleche is correct; information on templates says they are placed above the lead. BMK, article tags also inform readers of any significant issues with the article (or section) they are about to read, such as containing original research, skewed information, a significant lack of sources, etc. Lapadite (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia talk:Maintenance/Archive 1. In the case of it serves two purposes, it is an editor to editor message, but unlike for example  (which is one of the worst maintenance templates I have seen) it also provides some valuable information to readers (that some of the text has not been checked against verifiable sources). So I think the correct place to put this specific template is in the section where BMK has placed it, but I would place it at the top of the section not at the bottom. BTW there is no way there has ever been a consensus to place all maintenance tags at the start of the article, so I am not sure how that crept into Manual of Style/Lead section, as it is not true. One classic example is  which is always placed at the bottom of articles. Another is  the documentation of which says "This template can either be placed at the top of an article, at the bottom of the article page (in an empty 'References' or 'Notes' section—usually just before a  template), or on the article's talk page" (Template:Unreferenced) -- PBS (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a bit of common sense ought to be applied here, and not personal attacks, citing whether some action is a stipulation of policy or guideline, nor fighting over their applicability or what the wording means. The current location of the refimprove tag is "original", for want of a better word. I've never seen one tucked away at the very bottom of a references section of an article of this length that was so inadequately sourced. It's as if it was put there as an afterthought and for people to ignore. Now if one section of the article was not adequately sourced, there would be no question of putting it at the top of the relevant section; if it was a problem common to two or more sections – as seems to be the case here, with there only being 4 citations in the entire article body – it's pretty obvious that the tag belongs at the top. I'd ignore the "not spoiling the user experience" claim because the reader can also be part of the solution if only (s)he knew there was a problem. With the tag placed at the bottom of the refs section like now, it is marginally better than not having one at all because it is destined to be ignored by most. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 01:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If people do not look at references then what is the use of the template? It is only useful for those readers who look at the references. If it is only there for editors it is better off on the talk page along with all other editor to editor communications about the content of a page. -- PBS (talk) 09:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. It is policy for all articles to be adequately sourced. It is a discipline and fundamental requirement regardless of whether one thinks people read the references, so it's of primary importance for any insufficiencies be plainly visible. It is worthless having a tag at the very bottom of the references section. --  Ohc  ¡digame! 05:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , please refer to this perennial proposal. Lapadite (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @Lapadite77: and I would refer you to the archives talk pages of WT:Perennial proposals, where you will read there has never been a consensus on this, indeed the only RfC to generate a large response on the issue was Village pump (proposals)/Archive 108 (November 2013) where the overwhelming opinion was that maintenance templates, such as Orphan which have no useful reader content, ought to be on the talk page. -- PBS (talk) 10:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And it's why it's a "perennial proposal"; there's been no consensus to accept a tag move to talk pages. This is about a ref improve tag, not orphan tag. Ref improve tags are not placed on talks pages, but above the leads or at the top of relevant sections. Lapadite (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You miss the point this issue ought not to appear in the list of perennial perennial proposals because as the list says in its first sentence "This is a list of things that are frequently proposed on Wikipedia, and have been rejected by the community several times in the past." as there has never been rejection of the proposal, as there has never been a consensus in favour of placing maintenance tags in article space. As to you second point you are pushing against an open door see what I wrote above at 23:16, 10 April 2015. -- PBS (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with your comment on the archive link posted on 23:16, 10 April 2015 (with regard to wikification tags and the like), and I also agree with Qxz there, but that's beside the point here. Epeefleche is not making a proposal, and as we've established, there isn't a consensus, namely to keep them on the talk page (and you claim there also isn't one for the contrary, or hasn't been considerable rejection of the talk page idea, despite WP:PERENNIAL and the MOS indicating otherwise). It is convention to place a ref improve tag in the article, namely above the lead if it applies to the whole, so Epeefleche is correct in placing it there. If you question why it's encouraged in the MOS, you should be inquiring there about it. Presently, per the MOS, it "should go immediately after the hatnote and before the infobox." This is a relatively short article; instead of arguing about tag placement, why don't the two editors start adding the necessary citations so there's no need for the tag? Lapadite (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Template:Refimprove goes at the top of the article, like all such dispute/cleanup tags. They are not simply memos between editors, they are notices to readers that the article is still in a state of development and may be questionable. This very fact may underly the faulty rationale for trying to bury the tag. Tsk tsk. There's not even a legitimate debate about this. It's how it's been done for at least a decade. PS:  When only a particular section has referencing problems, use Template:Refimprove section at the top of the section.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, SMcCandlish, the top of the page is standard placement for most editors. And there actually is a legitimate debate about this now. See RfC: Location of Tag. I'll update the permanent link when it officially closes. Czoal (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The RfC has been snow-closed with the decision: "There is a clear (and overwhelming) consensus that this tag should be placed at the top of articles. Snow close." Czoal (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Roman 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/20090917141934/http://www.css-msa.org/search.php/ to http://www.css-msa.org/search.php/

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) 16:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)