Talk:St. Eunan's College

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Individual Staff Members 2 Picture Gallery 3 Building Problems 4 Unsourced and non-notable content

[edit] Individual Staff Members

This page should not include any information that wouldn't be found in a standard enclyclopedia entry on the subject. Naming individual members of staff is meaningless to anyone not associated with the school, and it violates Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines. The same goes for students, past or present, unless they've done anything sufficiently noteworthy! Pathlessdesert 12:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Word. Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 13:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think the whole article is someones vanity page. Djegan 20:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Should we request a deletion for it or let it be? Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 00:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think its borderline afd. Djegan 18:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

And so the question remains: should we or should we not? ;) It'd probably fail, though. Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 02:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It probably would fail. Let it alone, I say. Pathlessdesert 14:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture Gallery

(Removed remarks made by me earlier, meant largely as a joke, but uncivil in tone). Pathlessdesert 21:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Building Problems

This is the truth. It is not a hoax. I would not waste my time being a vandal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheBigDirtyBastard (talk • contribs) .

How about sticking to a single account when you edit? I like your new username better than the others. The "Number of Toilets: 4 (2 currently out of operation)" edit is pure comedy genius. Pathlessdesert 17:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

So, exactly what of that section is incorrect? Tagging it with a "hoax" tag unfortunately puts it in the suspected hoaxes category, which contains alot of very disreputable articels, and may cause trouble. It may be worth it to just do some redaction. 68.39.174.238 17:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think there is anything wrong with the Building Problems section.--PinkPaper 18:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea whether it is a hoax or not. I see it as yet another banal and inconsequential addition to this pig's breakfast of a vanity article, likely to be of interest to nobody outside of the college itself. Pathlessdesert 19:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it is that with such uncertainty as to whether it is a hoax or not perhaps it would be unwise as yet to campaign against its inclusion on this site. There are after all many more dubious pages under construction by more unscrupulous vandals elsewhere than those who are maintaining this one. As far as I can see it appears to give a reasonably detailed account of the school.

As a person who spends a considerable amount of my life there the disputed paragraph is accurate and I'm sure the other thousand people who are employed or study there would agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.42.18.62 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 18 November 2006.

Like I already said, Candelwicke/Together&Forever/TheBigDirtyBastard/86.42.18.62 (these are just some of the names you post under), how about using a single account to post your edits? It is considered bad form to use so many accounts. Pathlessdesert 21:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

OK--TheBigDirtyBastard 21:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I am not trying to put you off from editing this page or any other. I just think that you should be transparent about what you've been doing! Pathlessdesert 21:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Going to remove the thing above Building Problems because the article is sourced--86.42.53.119 16:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• No it isn't. Just adding a few external links doesn't magically make the article sourced; the links have to back up what it says in the article text. Demiurge 16:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The do back up. I think I--86.42.53.119 16:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC) will delete it.

• No they don't. The ceiling collapse is not mentioned in any of those links. Remove the tags again and you will be blocked under WP:3RR. Demiurge 16:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but why should i be blocked. maybe You should be blocked . Your no better than me . ive played my part you've played yours. Don't talk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.42.53.119 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 19 November 2006.

Excuse me for interrupting this disagreement but I did hear this mentioned on a local radio station earlier in the week. --PinkPaper 20:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.42.53.119 (talk • contribs).

Very sarcastic, aren't you? Do you have a life offline at all? Perhaps you take great joy from harrassing ordinary decent people and taking advantage of their attempts to make the world a better place. It would appear as though you have nothing better to do than to criticise the efforts of others who are working hard to make this project better. Unlike you, a lot of people have limited time to take part in this and I'm sure you've probably discouraged many genuine people from continuing to waste their time trying to reason with you. I wonder have you ever made a mistake at all, you seem like someone who knows everything. That isn't directly from the Dept. of Education, it is a reference to a report that was written. Isn't that what this article requires, a reference, a source? Which is exactly what it is. --Milkman Go Home 20:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Stop telling lies about sources, stop using sockpuppet accounts and grow up and stop treating Wikipedia as your own personal playground. Demiurge 21:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

But I have not lied. I changed my account because Wikipedia asked me to. It found the names offensive. I'm only trying to help with the information. If my attempts are not valued, it isn't really worth my time. Would you rather I left? You seem to be the only one bothered by my existence. Maybe you would rather I had never been born? --Milkman Go Home 21:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• First there was no source [1] then the source was a school annual [2], then it was a county council report, then it was the Department of Education report which was researched and published (on a freewebs.com site, naturally) in less than a week since the incident supposedly happened. Stop telling lies. Demiurge 21:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced and non-notable content

This page contains some useful information and the school is notable. However, there are plenty of unsourced claims which cannot be verified. These will be removed. The page also contains large quantities of non-notable informaton such as alumni without the notability to have wikipedia entries (red links), 15 photographs of the schools and its rooms, a list of non-notable past presidents, mention that the school has a library that contains Time magazine, details of school trips.

Although at least half of the content of this page should be removed, I disagree with part of the above. Alumni that are notable enough to be worth an article should be listed and redlinked--that's part of what builds the project in general, right? Somebody may be prompted by the link to go and add the article. "Notable alumni" should also include people that are "notable" in some meaningful (and verifiable) way, even if there is not enough information to justify an article. I don't know anything about Irish football, so I'm not making any guesses about the footballers, but the "artist" (who decorates children's bedrooms with characters created by Disney and others[3]) and the priest (whose short obituary reveals an admirable but unexceptional career, with no information except his parish postings) don't seem to be likely topics of articles. I think that it's up to neutral Irish editors to decide whether they should be removed--I'm just going to de-link them. --Hjal 18:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed Curtains99 23:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

All of this spurious and non-notable text and images will be removed, leaving a much shorter but more encyclopaedic article. Even the school crest has been ripped from a website and intentionally mislabeled as the contributor's own work. (This image can probably stay, as it counts as a fair use logo). I am sorry if this upsets the contributor of this article, but wikipedia will be devalued if readers have to wade through huge quantities of information that is neither notable nor sourced to find out about a subject. Please improve Wikipedia which I'm sure you can do if you put your mind to it. Curtains99 18:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As promised, the unsourced and non-notable material has been largely removed. Here are some suggestions for how to improve the article:

• Create wiki pages for those alumni with red links: inter-county footballers etc.
• Get a better photo of the school. The one remaining photo is very dark (try to get the sun behind you).
• Use the Template:IrishSchoolInfoBox to lay out the basic information about the school
• Get a proper logo for the school (maybe scan one) rather than the image that has been ripped from the school web site with whoosh lines
• Get a source for 'The college is now also the number one athletics and basketball school in the county' so that this doesn't have to be deleted.

Curtains99 13:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The information is relevant. Please do not vandalize any further or you will be blocked. --DevelopedMadness 18:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be mean but I will treat you the same way you treat me.--DevelopedMadness 18:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

All content submitted to Wikipedia must be verifiable. You will see this at the bottom of the edit box whenever you edit a page. Verifiability is a Wikipedia policy. An explanation of verifiability is provided here: WP:V Note particularly this part of the policy:

Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor

If this is confusing for you feel free to ask a question and someone will answer. Curtains99 20:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Good to see this page being knocked into shape! Pathlessdesert 23:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it's better but it still reads like a child's project. Boasting that your school has a library with Time magazine and a wheelchair ramp is like boasting that your kitchen is equipped with a kettle and a sink. I don't think the student who is tirelessly defending these unremarkable assertions understands that the school's reputation is diminished as a result. Curtains99 00:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)