Talk:Saint Francis High School (La Cañada Flintridge, California)

message: If you are new to Wikipedia, please read  NPOV on what is and isn't considered appropriate for inclusion in an article. Content that is unencyclopaedic, patent nonsense, or  vanity should also be avoided. If there is any other content that would be useful in this article however, feel free to re-add it. Cheers. Peruvianllama 23:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: The Order of Friars Minor Capuchin (also just Capuchins) are a distinct group from the Order of Friars Minor (also just Franciscans).  Right now, the article is linking to the wrong order.  This should be changed. Gentgeen 21:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Change has been made. Peruvianllama 06:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change

message: the link spelling to the homepage is incorrect, please correct this all powerful mod.
:Done, thanks. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 14:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  link spelling 

message: Regarding the current disagreement over 2 names on the alumni list:  I restored Daniel Paladini for whom there is no shortage of sources confirming that he attended St. Francis and was a soccer star there.  Regarding Lloyd Monserratt, for whom the proferred source is Rep. Xavier Becerra's tribute speech in the Congressional Record , I think that we have usually accepted evidence of that sort unless there was reason to question it.  (Unfortunately, the newspaper obituaries I could find online don't mention his high school.) Let's see if others offer opinions about Monserratt. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good edits Arxiloxos. The Facebook was not a proper source for Paladini but you have found other sources to replace Facebook, well done. Regarding Monseratt, unless there are other contradictory sources or complaints from Monseratt himself via official WP channels the Congressional Record is sufficient. -- — Keithbob • Talk •  16:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, the only way to get the other editor to stop edit warring and leaving notes like the ones found here was to open the DRN case. Thanks for intervening. --evrik (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well maybe not the only way, but your point is well taken. Anyway it seems to be working out. Happy to be of some help.  :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk •  19:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Alumni

message: I checked a couple pages of Google search until references to this school were really running thin. I believe that what was on the web should satisfy Wiki criteria without further taggring. The sources were as independent as you are going to get and tend to back up the mild claims on the school website. I think they should have been left as a reference since its claims are quite modest. Please point out which things that you removed are clearly objectionable, and not useful as indications of the academic and athletic success of the school.  Jzsj (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please make an argument that includes specific sources for specific content. There is nothing here to respond to. John from Idegon (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

text: You have no reliable sources for the AD team's achievement. The sanctioning body for this doesn't publish results on a website? Per guidelines, we do not discuss individual achievement and you have no independent sources; as such, I oppose the second graph entirely. The change in conference should be noted with a reliable journalistic source (not the advertisement rag cited previously). If the previous conference dated to the school's inception, or there is no other info available, it is not necessary to use two sets of dates - that's just unneeded verbiage. A listing of varsity sports can be sourced to the school, but an independent source such as the conference or the state sanctioning body would be preferable. If this is a coed school, be sure to list what sports are available to which sex and any coed teams. JV and less sports are irrelevant for an encyclopedia article. The references to various individual players are unneeded and seem spammy. Do not include a rival without an independent reference. That is usually easy enough. Just look through some coverage of games and look for the words rivals or rivalry. What we are trying to avoid is students deciding it is something different, or something depending on a single season. Your getting close to the refimprove tag being cleared, let's get these changes done and take a look. If you are OK with my proposed modifications, feel free to change what you have sourcing for now. It's doubtful you can posit an argument that will sway me in the second graph. John from Idegon (talk) 01:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Also regarding the second paragraph, the number of graduates for one given year seems trivial. On the third graph, if it isn't important enough for a newspaper to cover it, how do you have any argument that a world wide website should? John from Idegon (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Third party enrollment figures are ridiculously easy to come by and I have added them, along with demographics.  Without a reliable journalistic source, I still object to the bit on the athletic field renovations. And, again, I fail to see the utility in adding the number of graduates from one of this school's 70 graduating classes.  Again, the purpose of an encyclopedia article is to summarize the relevant (to the world, not the school community or to potential enrollees) information already published in reliable sources entirely independent of the school.  Without the reliable independent sources, it does not belong, period.  As to the relevance, that is subject to consensus.  Consensus is already expressed in general in the guidelines, but is subject to overturn with a strong enough argument on individual article talk pages.  I see no strength in your arguments, and at this point you do not have a consensus.  You are of course, welcome to attempt any of the many WP:DR methods, but other than WP:3O, you need to work more here to try to gain a consensus on what you want.  Be advised that simply being verifiable is no guarantee of inclusion. What you are not welcome to do, however is to keep yoyoing the article over material that you know darn well is in dispute.  I've added more or less standard content to address your false assertion that there are no third party sources to attendance.  That material is well sourced and addresses both our concerns.  Your repeated re-adding of material I have expressed problems with, however, is simply disruptive and needs to stop.  Thanks, . John from Idegon (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the tip on the nces website and that it is acceptable for an independent reference. I didn't find it on the first six pages of Google Search. Is there a list anywhere of what Wiki accepts as reliable sources? Any help in removing the tag is appreciated. Jzsj (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of independent sources and restoral of unsourced tag 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Saint Francis High School (La Cañada Flintridge, California). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20140222000454/http://www.sfhs.net/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=156015&type=d&pREC_ID=310105 to http://www.sfhs.net/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=156015&type=d&pREC_ID=310105
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified