User talk:JonRidinger/Archive 7

TRHS
Hi Jon. I've repeated your request at  WP:SCHOOLS on the article tp. The article looks very good already -  probably  due to  your experience in  working  on  FAs. I'll not do  much  to  it  because it's the sort of thing I  would pick  out  of the GAC list, and I  would like to  remain neutral  if I  were to  review it. I'll be watching  it  closely  though. --Kudpung (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I will have some other editors look it over and see what else they would suggest before taking it to GAN and hopefully more editors will have a look at it.  --JonRidinger (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have finished my review. You obviously put a lot of work into the article, and I appreciate its neutral tone.  I have placed it on hold. Racepacket (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I ran the dead link report, and it flagged the two refs as problems. The third ref should be marked subscription only.  I agree that the lead paragraphs should summarize the article.  However, fine details like the school colors are not sufficiently important to be included.  The lead of the Abraham Lincoln biography can certainly mention that he was killed, but should not describe the decor of the room where he was shot. See, WP:LEAD Racepacket (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Where do we stand? Do you have any further specific questions for me?  I will re-read the article to assess your changes. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ==Talkback==

Kent State alumni
I am watching and left a note on the IP's talk page. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 22:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

GAN
Since I see you are doing GANs, do you have time to review Los Angeles Daily News (historic)? I would be happy to do one of yours, or else to do another at random.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I gave it my first go with two college articles, so I will have a look. I'm actually exploring what to do about the 2nd nomination of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas article.  I failed it just 2 days ago and while some history and additional content was added in the meantime, it basically still has the same problems.  I'm wondering if it should get a quick fail (it has a citation style tag on one section) or if the nomination should be removed.  I'm not totally sure which would be best, but it won't pass GAN and if 11 days wasn't enough for the changes to be made the first time, I don't see what the point of a 2nd nomination will do.
 * I don't have any in GAN at the moment. I'm looking for additional eyes to go over the article Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio) and see what needs to happen to get it ready for FAC.  Any opinions/suggestions would be greatly appreciated.  --JonRidinger (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would post the UNLV question on WT:GAN so that most of the regular reviewers there are made aware of the issue. I have done a few GA reviews, but it has been a while since I last did one. While I agree with your idea of a quick fail, it might be better at this point to have input from the greater GA reviewer community.
 * I will be glad to look at the high school article - have you opened a peer review for it? If not can you please let me know where to review it (will there be a PR, or on the article talk page)? It will take me a few days. The Judd School, School for Creative and Performing Arts, and Avery Coonley School are three recent school FAs that might be useful models. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 16:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I carried out the changes on the article that you requested. I uploaded a fair use cover image and did some c/es. Have a look and see what you think. Regards, Wackywace  converse 20:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You should weigh the "fail" vs. "hold" decision carefully. It takes 2-3 months for a reviewer to get to an article, so that leads me to lean toward "hold" if the editors are willing to work with the reviewer. Since you have "failed" the article, I would suggest letting someone else have a chance to review the article. That decision may automactically impose a serious delay. Some articles need 3 or 4 GA reviews before making it, and the article benefits from having different reviewers weigh in. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Fall 2010 USRD newsletter

 * — JCbot (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Later-day Saints
While I do appreciate that the distinction is made at the beginning of the article, I do not feel it is sufficient enough. I also feel that the names of leaders of any religion other than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should not be included in an article titled "List of Latter-day Saints." There is a reason why there are other articles titled "Former Latter-day Saints," "Community of Christ," "Rigdonite," etc. It would be entirely appropriate to include those names of leaders on their respective sites and it also means that the lists I have been trying to delete are not lost on Wikipedia forever. I understand that they are "related" and the fact that each one of these movements is identified on the article for the mainstream LDS church does not bother me because it pertains to the history of the church, but these leaders are not "famous" LDS members/former members. I would even understand including the very first leader of each separate movement, but not each leader those movements have ever had because once they made a distinction between what they believe as opposed to what the LDS church believes, they would no longer consider themselves Latter-day Saints either. Please, if there is someone else I can communicate with, let me know because (as you've probably guessed) I am fairly new to this, but I do feel strongly about this that I would like someone to consider my opinion. Babyd2009 (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Roosevelt article
I think that the school colors do need to be well cited because this is much controversy over what the actualy school colors are. I thnk you dearly for your consideration on this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty5225 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no controversy as they are clearly visible in the pictures that are in the article. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The fist picture is back and white how is it clear that any red exists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty5225 (talk • contribs) 04:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The word was changed to increase readability I find using a search engine very resaonable when one word reveals multiple times more results than the other. You said that razed is commonly used I am not aguing this fact I am arguing that demolished is much more commonly used and would increase understandability.  Thank you for your understanding  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty5225 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you could not prove which occurred and in reality they all three probably did occur and I would like to reiterate that I do not think that razed is not used I just believe that demolished is used more often and that I felt doing a simple search on both words which you said are interchangeable would give a good view of which is more common in the English language. After conducting this search I found that demolished revealed many more results and I do not believe that the number of results is important but the ratio of results is indeed important because if a word is used twice as often as another it could be deduced that that word is used more often and known by more people.  So if we could please settle and change the word to demolished I would greatly appreciate it.  Thank you  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty5225 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Razed" is a perfectly good word in the English language. Answering one of your comments, Wikipedia does not have to be written to be understood at all age levels and education levels.  That would be the Simple English Wikipedia.  Razed is more specific to buildings than demolished is, and has a stronger sense of intention.  --Beirne (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Enrollment
This is not vandalism. Do you count the students daily? Kent4Eva (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent4Eva (talk • contribs) 04:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, well the "most recent statistic" is that I am not there. 1,336-1=1,335 Kent4Eva (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent4Eva (talk • contribs) 04:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is the "statistic" even up there if it is not currently accurate? Should you not cite it as being an outdated fact in the article so that people are not confused by it as I was? Also, The other editing going on on this page at this moment is driving me nuts. I keep trying to find the revisions having to do with my issue, and I keep seeing QWERTY's. He is also right, by the way. I got far enough in English to know that the two are interchangeable. You are both right, so please, both of you, stop arguing. Kent4Eva (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent4Eva (talk • contribs) 04:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not say it had to be changed. I just said that you guys are arguing over a synonym, and it is not necessary to do so. I was just annoyed because the two of you are just going back and forth and making it difficult for me to find your talk page. As with the enrollment issue, it should be clearly cited that the statistic is for the 09-10 year and not current. It confused me, so I am sure it has confused others. I just happen to know for a very certain fact that there is one less adolescent to grace RHS with my smile (and my rusty Corolla) every morning.Kent4Eva (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

my point is that changing a word for the sake of changing it is not a good reason. And yes, after the enrollment number it says "(2010)" so that it is clearly dated (the report came out in August 2010). --JonRidinger (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be cited as being from a 2010 report, but please then edit it t reflect the fact that the actual reported number is from last year. The enrollment of a high school fluctuates drastically from year to year, and this may cause confusion. I am not an expert with the Wikipedia rules, so I do not know how this edit should be made, but I am asking you to make this change for me. You seem to be the editor of the page so I am submitting a request for it to be clarified. Also, once again, please do not talk to ME about changes being made by this Qwetry guy! I don't care what you guys talk about, but I am trying to discuss the enrollment with you, and you are blowing me off.Kent4Eva (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, in the infobox, after the number 1,336, there is a "(2010)" to indicate that the number is from 2010. In the article itself, the sentence reads "As of 2010..."  That is standard for Wikipedia and for any published source that uses a type of population number.  The enrollment is never static, but to constantly update it would be overly picky and unnecessary.  The point is to give an accurate, not necessarily precise, view of the enrollment.  As for changing "drastically" every year, it really doesn't.  It's largely the same year to year within 100 either way.  10 years ago the enrollment was right about the same as it is today.  "Drastically" would be something like dropping or going up by a large percentage (like a couple hundred people or more).  Changing from 1,342 (2009 enrollment) to 1,336 is not "drastic".  The last "drastic" enrollment change was in the 1960s and 1970s when Kent's population increased by a large percentage (like near 60%).  --JonRidinger (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The text of the article is clear that it is 2009-10. The problem is that the infobox parameter is different, although technically compatible with the article.  Many states have an enrollment census on the first week of school and then do another a month later with the second being used to compute state aid. I suspect that even though the report was dated 2010, it was probably based on Sept 2009 or October 2009 data.  The best solution would be to add a footnote to that infobox item. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The text of the article states "through the 2009-2010 school year" meaning after the school year. Nothing in the report states exactly when the enrollment data was collected, so we can't speculate based on other states or situations.  It is also labeled as "average daily enrollment" suggesting it is not a beginning-of-the-year census.  The bottom line is that if anyone dated the data it would be dated as "2010" since that's when it was released (more specifically August 2010).  Personally I think it's geting a little picky between having "2009-2010" or "2010" in the infobox; the point is to let the reader know how recent the numbers are.  If you feel there is a clarity problem between the text and the infobox, I'd just change the article text.  I wrote "Through the 2009-2010 school year" to avoid another use of "As of 2010..." which is already quite frequent.  --JonRidinger (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever way school roll is counted in the USA, let us not forget that there are also tens of thousands of articles here about schools in other countries. The rational  presented by  Jon  is logical  and is the same that  I  apply  to  the hundreds of school articles that  I patrol, repair, devandalise, update, and write. I  tend to  round the figures up and down using  common sense as seen from  an encyclopedia reader's angle. Anyone needing  more precise information can contact the school or the local  authority.--Kudpung (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This makes adding a ref to the enrollment parameter of the infobox all the more important. Racepacket (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Because it is cited in the body of the article, citing in the infobox isn't necessary.  I'm not seeing what the problem is here to be honest...--JonRidinger (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, in regards to the "2009-10" to me, it looks awkward in the infobox. The number in parenthesis should show the year the data comes from.  It would be one thing if it were a 2005 report released in 2010, but this is a report that was completed in 2010, therefore simply putting "2010" is more than sufficient. The fact that some of the data was collected at the end of 2009 is more of a detail rather than an important fact.  If people want to know the finer details of the state report cards, the link is available.  --JonRidinger (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It makes the adding of a ref to the infobox even less important. An infobox is provided as a quick overview. It should not offer any information (except perhaps street address) that is not treated in depth in the article. Approximations are fully in order for infoboxes, and it neither necessary nor aesthetsic to clutter them up with references because the ref will already have been supplied in the text and supplied by either the local authority, the state school inspection board, or failing those, the school itself. If a school  article is complete and well  written, it's history will  mention the evolution and growth of the size of the school  over time. It  can be taken for granted that the figure in the infobox was correct at the time the diff was posted, if the author was doing  his/her research correctly.  Kudpung (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jon, I've sent out a friendly request to everyone to continue talking about this school on its tp. It's not fair using your kitchen as a chat room, and anyway, with so many people involved, the discussion now needs centralising. --Kudpung (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did already post there, though there really aren't that many people involved.  It's you, me, and Racepacket.  Kent4Eva hasn't edited since the initial edit that I reverted (though we had a discussion about it) and Qwerty's edits were not related to the enrollment; they were mostly centered around the use of the word "razed" in the history section.  If you look at the edit history of the article and the discussion that followed, Kent4Eva was simply editing the enrollment because he no longer attends the school, not because of any type of disagreement with or questioning of the source. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Jon. I meant it generally, not necessarily for any specific topics that may arise about the school. It's just  that  as you  did  such a magnificnt job on it, you are the magnet for any discussion. It used to happen a lot on my tp too until I put a banner on the top. What I'm secretly hoping is to drum up some support for the WP:WPSCHOOLS project, and that's why anything about schools shows up on my watch list. We  have over three hundred (300) members and only 2 (two) of then are active on the  project itself!--Kudpung (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK thanks for clearing that up. I'm kind of surprised this particular issue has even come up.  It just seems so trivial to me, I don't see the point of changing it from what it was. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely, and your's isn't the only trivial issue that's being discussed to death, there's also one here Template talk:Infobox UK school about the infobox template itself. The most recent statistic is that although the schools project has 327 'members', I'm the only one who has been actively working on it for months! I've written a newsletter that I will be publishing soon.Kudpung (talk) 00:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is full of trivial matters I've noticed. I'm all for accuracy and clarity, but sometimes we get a project or a preference and think that's the way everything has to be.  Thanks for your work...I was kind of in a semi-retirement "maintenance" break until the edits came up on the Roosevelt article.  I try to update and help articles as I see them (I cleaned up a few New York school articles that were full of crap).  The Roosevelt article is the first article I ever started from nothing on Wikipedia, so I'm sure some would accuse me of article ownership.  Even then, the edits by Kent4Eva and Qwerty didn't surprise me, but this has, not only that it initially happened, but that it's taken this much time to explain.  --JonRidinger (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Kent/Census
Just wanted to let you know that the 2010 Census should be coming out on New Year's Eve Night. Not sure what time, but that's what the Census website said. Other information is being spaced out from then to 2013 and further. :( But the population stuff is coming out New Year's Eve Night.  Just some FYI. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 01:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I saw your note at the cities project talk page too.  I guess the benefit of it coming out over time is that we won't have to update all demographics sections all at once, we can update them as each data set comes out.  Fun fun.  --JonRidinger (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is true. Most of the big information will happen this year, so this will be the big year for editing cities and towns.  Might need to get a re-read on the Spoken Word version of the article I just had done.  Check it out, it is at the top (see the "speaker" icon) and at the bottom.  It sounds awesome. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 02:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Establishments for Franklin Township
Replied at the talk page; I don't think it wrong to have multiple establishment categories. Have a happy Christmas :-) Nyttend (talk) 13:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)