Talk:Waterloo High School (New York)

Content
I think there's a misunderstanding. Here's why I think the removed content should stay in the article.


 * 1) It is relevant to the school's article and makes up most of the information.
 * 2) Most school articles(from what I've seen) have this info.

I hate to start an edit war, but I'd like to make myself clear on this. -- D -Day My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes 12:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we need to remember that this is an encyclopaedia and should be encyclopaedic without containing material that is of little interest to the rest of the world (however defined). The only people interested in when the school bell rings are those who attend the school and this material can be obtained of the school website.  The only people interested in knowing the names of the teachers of each subject are those who wish to go to the school or attend the school AND this can be obtained of the website.  Wikipedia does not duplicate websites.  There is a clear link to the school website for further information.  Further, if you want up to date information on the school, do you go to a disinterested third party (such as Wikipedia?) or do you go to the school website?  Perhaps read the guidance on what makes a good wikipedia article.  Thanks for discussing this. Maustrauser 06:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Removals
I removed the following from this article: the list of former principals, the list of former assistant principals, and the bell schedule. These removals were made in line with Wikipedia policies relating to notability and being a mirror site. The only time former administrators or teachers should be listed is if they were notable in some regard, meaning they have a Wikipedia article of their own. It's the same way we deal with notable alumni. A detailed list of the former principals and assistants is neither notable nor encylcopedic, even more so discussing why they left. The bell schedule is also not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. A basic description of how the school divides up the day is appropriate, but not the schedule itself. Be sure to read WP:WPSCH/AG, particularly "what not to include". "School articles should specifically not include: Lists of current teachers, pupils, administrative staff, school secretaries, etc.; School timetables and bell schedules." Being familiar with the guidelines of the school project and Wikipedia in general will save editors a lot of time spent in compiling and creating these lists and tables that end up being deleted. I also removed a blank section header. There is no need to include a blank section header when it cas easily be added when appropriate content is available. The article also needs references as it has none. If there are questions, please ask. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Reiterating what I said back in May, extensive lists of current and former administrators are not appropriate for school articles. The only time any former students, teachers, or administrators should be mentioned is if they have some kind of notability (i.e. their own Wikipedia article).  The only administrators who should be listed are the current ones in the infobox. This article needs reliable sources for the remaining content (particularly its academic and historic sections) as well as further development and expansion according to the guidelines of the Schools Wikiproject.  Even with a source, the list of current and former administrators is not appropriate as I described in May.  --JonRidinger (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Middle School
Under no circumstances should the terrible picture of the middle school, with the truck directly in the middle, be in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrtamus (talk • contribs) 18:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, but you need to understand that the use of tags you have employed isn't proper. For instance, the "relevance" tag is out of place because school articles are encouraged to have a section on the facilities according to the schools wikiproject guidelines.  If you are going to be tagging schools articles, you need to read and become familiar with the Wikiproject Schools article guidelines so you know what to expect.  The biggest issue with this article is the complete lack of sources, which the main tag at the beginning covers.  When a tag is placed at the beginning, individual tags that cover the same thing (in this case citations) within the article aren't necessary.  Individual tags are usually for specific facts within an article that already has some sort of source or sources.  Tags are to help the article improve; using them too much is known as overtagging and instead of helping the article improve, it makes it even more difficult to read.  Instead of focusing on a massive amount of tags, focus on fixing the problems you see.  See WP:TAGGING, WP:OVERTAGGING, and Responsible tagging.
 * Next, the "source" you used for the name of the school doesn't work since the school's own website uses the name "Waterloo High School", a far more reliable source than a Google Map, which can easily be incorrect on things like specific names. You also need to become familiar with the use of Citation templates and how they are used. I am more than happy to show you.  --JonRidinger (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough; and I like what you did with deleting the "teaches according to the board of regents". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrtamus (talk • contribs) 18:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just looking at that and changed it to New York State Education Department, though I'm not sure I like that. It's under the direction of the NYSED, but not sure "teaches according to" is totally accurate.  May just be easier to remove it.  --JonRidinger (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Removing it entirely is the way to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrtamus (talk • contribs) 02:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)