Talk:DeSales High School (Geneva, New York)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-Importance within Schools. | |
 |
This article has been marked as needing an infobox. | |
|
|
||
 |
This article is part of the New York State WikiProject, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to the U.S. state of New York. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
For previous discussions see: Archive1
[edit] New teachers
Hi, it's me again. Some teachers at the school have left. Mind if I delete them?
- Nope. Sounds good. If they were notable outside of teaching, simply create a Former teachers section and add them there. Wikibofh 7 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)
[edit] Teacher content borders on vanity.
Why is there biographical information about individual teachers in this article? If separate articles were created for any of the teachers, they would be deleted without question as vanity. If they were editors here, we would tell them to move the content to their user pages. Is it really that necessary to, effectively, post somebody's resume here if they haven't done anything that would make them deserve an article? Even college articles don't list all of the professors (or even all of the notable professors) in their schools. I'd like to delete the teacher sections if it's ok with other editors. --Idont Havaname 20:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- D-Day asked me if it was OK to put them in, and I said yes. I think having individual teacher information in an article about the school they teach at is fine. As it turns out, most of these were deleted as vanity a while ago. They are not notable outside of the school context, but hey, they're in the school article, so it seems fine by me. I'll be curious as to what consensus is on this. Wikibofh 21:01, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
- I hope we don't end up in a big fight about this - I have no strong opinion. WikiProject Schools doesn't encourage this level of detail but its actually quite informative in context. As an aside, I certainly wish university articles listed their notable professors, that would be extremely helpful for me if I'm trying to make pages about them. Kappa 21:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- I've been asked to comment on this. I don't think the staff information harms the article, although it isn't particularly encyclopedic and in the past I've routinely erased such information, even the Principal's name, because I don't think it's usually relevant to the institution. But there are exceptions, for instance an article on Rugby School that failed to mention its famous headmaster Dr Thomas Arnold would not be an adequate article. The names of my teachers, and I remember every single one, they are all dear to me. I can understand the impulse that places those names in this article. There is no intrinsic reason to omit those names, so they should stay unless there is a general feeling that the article doesn't look right containing their names.
- I think the suggestion that the article is made into a vanity piece by the presence of schoolteachers' names needs to be taken seriously. Looking at the other parts of the article, there's more than enough material to make a good article. To me it doesn't matter how much window-dressing there is, I can ignore it and get what I need. It may well be that the overall shape of an article is more important to some other people and would seriously degrade the quality for them. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
- I had a feeling something like this would happen. Just to clarify, this was not intended as vanity, but rather to add more to the article about the school. I can see where Tony Sidaway is coming from. I'll do what it takes to avoid a big debate about this, which includes deleteing that section if necessary. It'll stay up for now, but I'd rather it not become a big argument. And I did indeed ask Wikibofh on whether it should have been posted in the first place and he agreed it was a good idea, so I went along on his advice and permission rather than cause a big mess. Let's just wait and see for the time being. --D-Day 23:10, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Saintshadow2.gif
Image:Saintshadow2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
