Talk:Pensacola Catholic High School

message: Almost the entire text of this page was copied from http://www.pensacolachs.org/Default_histmiss.htm, making it a copyright violation. I have removed it. Please expand this article using your own words, not copying information from elsewhere. Angr (t • c) 12:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copied! 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Pensacola Catholic High School. 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/20090429033455/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 18:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
*
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

message: How do I make this article worse --Biografer (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: When you make arguments based in sources and policies, I'll reply. John from Idegon (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I provided the sources, this was for the updated enrollment, which you tried to remove for an unknown to me reason, although every other school article have this type of source and nobody complained. I also provided sources to the alumni. Why is that a problem? Maybe you have sources that I am not aware of? I need help on an article, not constant reverting.--Biografer (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

text:  I added another source.--Biografer (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you not understand what a secondary source is? If not why do you keep restoring this material without one. And sorry, but I do not believe you've looked at all 20,000 + school articles, and if you have you didn't look very closely. Almost all school articles have secondary sources for statistics. The preferred one is NCES. Also, you've repeatedly restored unsourced material I removed. Further, you have no consensus for your changes, yet you continue to restore them, against policy. I'm reverting you again. There is a huge problem with schools, particularly private church sponsored schools, using Wikipedia for PR. The accepted standard on school articles is secondary sources are required for virtually everything. This article, without any new secondary sourcing, needs to be significantly smaller, not larger. John from Idegon (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I tried the kinder gentler way, but geez....the writing in your changes is absolutely atrocious. Your syntax is terrible, you've shown no respect for the guidelines for school articles or MOS for that matter. I'll fix the stats but I cannot fix your lousy writing. Thanks for finding some sources. If you care to work on this, please take it in small pieces so it can be discussed. Otherwise, I'll use the sources you've found and write a concise history when I have time. John from Idegon (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok. Lets stop calling the writing "atrocious". I'm a foreign national who came to your site to help you and improve an article. I was editing school articles for a long time, so I don't know what respect I didn't show? I wrote too long history? Ok, we can shorten it, I wont dispute that. :) The fact that  protected the article on your behalf, as if I was vandalizing it, is also unfonded. Let's get couple of things straight: I want to improve an article by sourcing the correct phrase. That way, we could get rid of the refimprove template, but no, you prefer it to be there rather then the content being sourced. I also completely baffled by the fact that you restored 2009 enrollment even though in this source it says 625 students. The source also indicates that there are 37 not 35 staff and its ratio id 15:1 not 15.8:1. This type of sources were used in every school article I seen.--Biografer (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: And as for my edit warring, we had edit conflict, because when I was putting sources, John was ready to revert, why? beats me. And now, thanks , now only you 2 can edit an article (which you wont, because you both are busy with vandal tracking and other admin stuff). So, as a result, this article will remain unsourced, and non of us will edit it. Because my refs you remove, although they are reliable... Pensacola News Journal is a better RS then no RS whatsoever. Am I wrong?--Biografer (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

text: and yes you are wrong.  Although verifiabilty is an important pillar policy, it is not the deciding factor for inclusion.  WP:CONSENSUS is.  Article content guidelines represent a consensus of editors that work on articles of the given type. They certainly can be deviated from, but you'd need a local consensus to do so and you do not have that. Your additions added large amounts of details that are of little interest beyond the school and its community. Do you honestly think the huge number of names you plugged into the article, all non notable, help anyone understand the school better?  Although on the surface, the Pensacola newspaper would seem a reliable source, that is about the biggest "puff piece" I've ever seen, so it needs to be used carefully and sparingly. Sub headers are discouraged by MOS.  Using titles and post nominals is also out of proper style. Naming non notable people is out of school article guidelines.  As I stated above, this article is way overblown and needs to be cut, not expanded with questionable sources. John from Idegon (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

text: Ok. Did you read why we had edit warring? It wasn't because I was putting something that is not suppose to be there, it was you who revert it, causing an edit conflict. That's why I needed to restore the sources per the WP:BRD policy. Yet, you continued to revert. Yes, I will be happy for stats to be updated to this source. Why you believe it should be 2015?--Biografer (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

text: All non notable??? I'm sorry, René Henry Gracida - notable, Joseph Gregory Vath - notable, Paul Francis Tanner - notable!--Biografer (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: NCES should be used to provide the stats (as John mentioned above), this follows in line with all the other US schools on here, ideally using the dedicated us_nces_school_id parameter with the respective NCES School ID/NCES Private School ID templates. See this former private school for example to see how this is used and sourced for the other-related stats such as ratio. Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well Ok, deal. Lets use NCES.--Biografer (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

text:  My other concern, is that why you removed titles from bare references? How would we know if the link will suddenly die and we wont have a title in place?--Biografer (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources dispute