Talk:Waterloo High School (New York)

message: I think there's a misunderstanding. Here's why I think the removed content should stay in the article.
#It is relevant to the school's article and makes up most of the information.
#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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Content 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Removals

message: The history, Freshmen Academy, Co-curriculars, and building layout sections need sources that aren't available online.  If anyone who went to or is currently at the school or in Waterloo has access to published histories and/or a course registration guide, that would be very helpful.  The only information available online is the current student handbook and that includes a partial list of co-curriculars and athletic teams, but makes no mention of the Freshmen Academy or any other missing info.  --JonRidinger (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How could someone (George Murray Hulbert) have gone to a school that was built in 1929, when he himself had graduated 30 years earlier?  I will delete him from the notable alumni list.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wearend4 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources