Talk:Walnut Hills High School

message: Good start... pics and more refs Victuallers 10:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Why so many for 2005?  I thought it was usual to have only one.  Pzavon 03:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They all had a perfect 6.0 (weighted) GPA. 8.8.201.199 22:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Seven was unusual, we only had three last year and two the year before, if I remember correctly. Joe (Talk) 15:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I belive so. Joe (Talk) 15:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valedictorians? 

message: Removed from a note in the article to this discussion page, Fatsherm said:
:Pzavon, if you are going to delete this again, don't mark it as spam, it's not; as a current sudent I'll be more than willing to scan it and send it to you. You're free to edit this, but don't mark it as spam; that is offensive."
First off, the list looks like spam - being just a list of items with no connection to this particular school and no reference to a source for the information.  It is simply a list of activities, several of which would seem to be impermissible at any school event (freaking, disrobing, humping, etc).  That fortifies my impression of it as spam.  My personal opinion is that, at the least, it lacks a neutral point of view.  What are the circumstances under which these prohibitions were imposed? Why is it worth mentioning in this article?  Who objects and why? Who agrees and why?
I'll not remove it again for a day or so, pending your reasonable response.
Pzavon 02:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the list is unencylopedic. The actual list as stated in the student handbook is somewhat longer, and for this reason it seems to have acquired some notariety (it was apparently mentioned in Playboy, although I'm not sure whether this is true or not.) I don't know whether that makes it notable enough to be worth mentioning in the article. 8.8.201.199 21:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  School Dances 

message: No bumping and grinding at school dances? Recent valedictorians and their colleges of destination? Wikipedia isn't LiveJournal, MySpace, etc. These are useless pieces of information relevent only to alumni of one school. I'm pearing this article down.Killua 23:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like you used something closer to a meat cleaver than a pearing knife, but I, for one, will go along with it.  Pzavon 01:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a tad ridiculous 

message: Supposedly WHHS only refers to students who graduate as alumni.  I've never attended WHHS (though I've been to academic team matches there), so I can't argue for that; however, I am a big fan of using more official definitions (see Merriam-Webster, Oxford,  even the Wikipedia article) rather than a term that is misused (either ignorantly or deliberately).
Even if WHHS does use that term in that way, is that a valid reason to modify the wiki entry, since the accepted use of the word does NOT include that definition? I'm assuming this is because they don't want an inconvenient piece of trivia (Manson being an alumnus) to be bandied about.  74.129.17.185 01:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dictionary definitions often include uses that are not commonly or technically "accepted" depending on the dictionary and the definition.  A common use of the word "alumnus" is to mean a graduate.  Claiming this use to be "incorrect" or "invalid" is to ignore the effect of continued common usage on the evolution of language.  Pzavon 19:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like "nookyooler" and "ain't?"  Lots of things have become common usage, that doesn't mean that they should be accepted by the community.  When was the last time you heard someone use "whom" properly?  Does that mean we should remove "whom" from the language?  Actually, . . . ;)  Cgirten 02:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alumni 

message: Most of the very specific accomplishments listed in the athletics section lack any sort of citation and don't seem to me to have an encyclopedic tone in their presentation.  Is there anyone watching this article who can provide relevant citations?  In the absence of citations, I propose removing most of these highly specific assertions.  Comments?  Pzavon (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not relevant but I went to Walnut Hills, not "walnut".  Graduated Class of 1967.  Pzavon (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Athletics 

message: To much detail on buildings, it reads more like a brochure now. We don't need to know it all, that's what the school website is for. This is an encyclopedia. I'm not at the moment what level is appropriate, but certainly the tunnels don't belong. And talking about whiteboards and the latest technology is promotional as well as too much detail. 
I also note that the recent edit left the old sources. Doug Weller (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.SovalValtos (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much detail, some promotional 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Walnut Hills High School (Cincinnati, Ohio). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100315213852/http://www.advanc-ed.org:80/schools_districts/school_district_listings/? to http://www.advanc-ed.org/schools_districts/school_district_listings/?
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified