Talk:St. Stephen's Episcopal School (Austin, Texas)

message: I'd like to make this a good article.  Let's discuss in this talk page section how we can improve it. --Danorton 19:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is St. I go there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:35B0:5980:C69:504:ABAF:B10D (talk • contribs) 01:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 2008 - Let's Clean This Up 

message: Although the school's seal reads "Saint Stephen's" the school otherwise almost exclusively refers to itself as "St. Stephen's".  Consequently, I've chosen the latter and made the usage consistent in the article. -- 04:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is St. I go there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:35B0:5980:C69:504:ABAF:B10D (talk • contribs) 01:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Saint" or "St." ?

message: Someone did a major rewrite of this. Who was it, since I'm probably a classmate of yours?Foster2008 00:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misc

message: :Image:StainedGlass.jpg 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) 06:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:StainedGlass.jpg

message: I do not see sufficient evidence to support the inclusion of Blake Mycoskie in the list of alumni. For more information, see the related Wikipedia guideline about notability. --Danorton 21:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Several of the links you mentioned are published by Mycoskie himself.  Millions of people have similar credits.  Is there something that makes him particularly notable -- of encyclopedic notability?  Again, please review the related Wikipedia guideline about notability. --Danorton 16:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Could you possibly provide links to the articles you mention about Mycoskie?  (If you look at the article about Boyd Vance, you'll see that the references are not to Google searches.  There are only a very a tiny fraction of notable stage directors in IMDB.)  Thank you. --Danorton 21:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of Alum Blake Mycoskie 

message: The notability of Boyd Vance (Class of 1975) was questioned above.  I believe that he satisfies the Wikipedia notability guideline.  I cite the numerous independent articles easily located on the web by Google search.
I have restored Boyd to the list of notable alumni. --Danorton 22:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of Alum Boyd Vance 

message: I noted numerous problems with this article several months ago and there has been little improvement and regular vandalism. If no one else is interested, I'll do a little digging and add some references, but unless I get some help from others, I'll likely end up removing most of the content, as it's either unreferenced or self-referenced. Please help! If you'd like to help, but haven't done much article editing, please review these Wikipedia policies and guidelines that relate directly to the issues I noted (the quotations are my personal selections from the articles):
*Wikipedia:Verifiability - "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
*No original research - "[A]ll material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source."
*Neutral point of view - "When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed."
**(See also the NPOV tutorial.)
*Wikipedia:Citing sources - "If you do not know how to format a citation, provide as much information as you can, and others will help to write it correctly."
*Notability (people) - "[M]ultiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."
Regarding discussions on this talk page:
*Civility - "Editors are expected to remain civil, refrain from making personal attacks, operate within the scope of policies, and are urged to be responsive to good-faith questions."
*Consensus - "[U]se the talk page to discuss improvements to the article, and to form consensus concerning the editing of the page."
**Also see the article on the "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle."
*Finally, review the Talk page guidelines.
As I mentioned before, I'd like to see this become a "good article," but that's only likely to happen with the contributions of several editors. Thanks! --Danorton (talk) 05:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Cleanup Imminent 

message: I'd say being the wife of a vice presidential candidate of a major party is good enough for a mention on your high school's wikipedia page. Apparently some don't think so since the entry has been deleted twice. Is she notable enough that she deserves her own wikipedia page yet? No, probably not. If her husband were to win and become VPOTUS, then she'd probably rate her own page. But how can someone object to her now being notable enough to include on this page? 98.196.14.18 (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia edits must be backed by reliable sources. Time Magazine says Janna Ryan attended Camp Waldemar school in Hunt, Texas, not St. Stephen's Episcopal School in Austin, Texas. All biographical information on living people must be supported by reliable sources. so unless you have a reliable source to back your original research, Janna Ryan must be removed from the Alumni section. Mesconsing (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Time magazine is wrong. A minimal amount of searching on your part would have informed you that Camp Waldemar is a "camp" and not a school, so Time may be a source, but a "reliable" source? Maybe not. Janna and her sister Dana both graduated from St. Stephen's, and photographs of them can easily be found in St. Stephen's yearbooks published between 1985-1988. For example, Janna's senior page is page #29 of the 1987 St. Stephen's "Deacon" (otherwise know as a "primary source") But if you want to go with LESS accurate information from Time magazine, be my guest! 98.196.14.18 (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you take some time learning about Wikipedia policies. One of its core policies is Verifiability, not truth. That means that material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. WP:BLP also says that biographical information on living people must have a reliable source. All you have to do is add a reliable source to the Janna Ryan entry, and it can stay.  -- Mesconsing (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How unfortunate for Wikipedia. Is the school itself a "reliable" source? On page 10, Janna Little Ryan (class of 1987) and her husband Paul Ryan are listed as contributors to the school. http://www.sstx.org/images/annualReport2004.pdf. I find it sad that someone would need to jump through hoops in this manner to correct misinformation from so-called "reliable" sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.14.18 (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy requiring reliable sources is to prevent anyone from adding spurious information to Wikipedia. That's particularly important for living people. Although using entities (e.g., schools) as sources for information on themselves is discouraged (because it's a conflict of interest and potentially self-serving and biased), it's not prohibited. The source to which you linked seems reliable for that particular information. Still, Janna Ryan is not notable. The rule of thumb is that for someone to be included in a list, s/he must be independently notable, i.e., s/he must have a Wikipedia article, as do all the entries in the Alumni list in this article, except Janna Ryan. As soon as she gets her own article, she can be added to the alumni list. -- Mesconsing (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Still, Janna Ryan is not notable." According to whom? You must be kidding yourself. Of course she's notable. https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=Janna+Ryan She's had huge amounts of media attention in the past several weeks and you, yourself even stated just a little while ago that "All you have to do is add a reliable source to the Janna Ryan entry, and it can stay." So you appeared to think she was notable enough then? Why not now? Does she need a page that's as detailed as Viola Canales? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viola_Canales That should take all of 30 seconds to put together.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.14.18 (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: According to whom? According to Wikipedia. Read the policy: WP:LISTPEOPLE. A person may be included in a list of people if the person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. It has already been determined on one or more talk pages or notice boards that Janna Little does not meet the WP notability requirement, so give it a rest. -- Mesconsing (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, whatever. Boyd Vance is notable, but Janna Ryan, who has been on national television and mentioned hundreds of times in the political media in the past few weeks somehow isn't. LOL. You certainly aren't much for logic, especially considering how you've changed your tune since your original objection was to the reference and not to her notability. Obviously there's some political sour grapes going on here as well since Jill Biden had her own page back in 2008, well before her husband became vice president. Janna Ryan was already mentioned on her husband's page - which I linked to. And that link plus her verified status as an SSS graduate are good enough evidence for me to decide that her link here is appropriate.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.14.18 (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

text: "Spouting off?" Hardly. I'm merely pointing out that you don't appear to be able to back up your rationale. First you claimed that the link wasn't sourced appropriately. Then, once I did provide a source that you found suitable, you decided to move the goalposts so you could try to ignore your earlier statement: "All you have to do is add a reliable source to the Janna Ryan entry, and it can stay." It's intellectually dishonest to try to maintain that a person who is involved (even as a spouse) in a national presidential election isn't notable. Want proof? Go look at past elections, and until you get into the 60's, EVERY *losing* VP candidate's spouse (but one) has a Wikipedia page! The last losing VP spouse who doesn't have one is Lloyd Bentsen's wife from the 1988 race with Dukakis. Every other one: Todd Palin, Elizabeth Edwards, Hadassah Lieberman, Elizabeth Dole, John Zaccaro, Joan Mondale, Eunice Kennedy Shriver has one. Care to explain that?  You can claim that there's a "consensus" but I'm showing you the actual consensus - what has Wikipedia done (or not done) with the spouses of people who ran for (but did not win) VP. Since 1972, in all cases but ONE, Wikipedia has created a page for that person.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.14.18 (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The link I provided already explained that. The talk page of St. Stephen's Episcopal School (Austin, Texas) is not the place to question the lack of an article for Janna Ryan. Please take your concern to the appropriate WP page. -- Mesconsing (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, you'll have to be more specific about what "that" is. And fyi, I did not question the lack of an article for Janna. What I did do was show that EVERY VP candidate spouse (save one) winds up with a Wikipedia article page about them even if their spouse loses the election, so your objection to her status as a notable alumnus isn't convincing because she already satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for being a 'notable' person with many secondary sources of information about her, she is a public figure, and history shows that her red article link will eventually turn blue. If you have some sort of an axe to grind - great. Grind away. Just be honest about why you're doing it, okay? 98.196.14.18 (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notablility of Alum Janna Ryan