Talk:Princeton High School (New Jersey)/Archive 1

message: Is it really necessary to print a schedule here? - S. Komae (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Schedule

message: I'm going to remove all unnecessary parts of the article. This article should be our guideline. Also, someone needs to add the curriculum. --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 00:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article needs a clean up, but I definitely think the achievement gap is worth mentioning, since it was reported on in the New York Times, and in my experience (non-verifiable) it was extreme. Probably the entire schedule shouldn't be mentioned, but perhaps the lab-days being connected with gym and short Wednesdays should be mentioned? Just a thought. Makemi 01:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You're right; some cleanup is desirable. I may work on the curriculum sometime. As for the schedule, yes, it needs to go. And went it did, though information on the general aspect of the school day need not totally disappear. This is a relevant aspect of the day. Another thing that ought to be described: peer group, a rather unique program. Btw, standard style here at Wikipedia is Article title, not Article Title. Just a headsup! D. G. 01:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-up

message: Here's a copy of the HTML comment I inserted. Maybe I should remove it. I though t it would be reasonable to place it there, inline, so that it would be visible to those who might edit that section. It follows:
IN RE: Verification of information in this section. Most of this was written by me, Domingo Galdos. It replaced what was previously here re the Tower, which was a half-wit ungrammatical runon sentence. Everything in this section is true and has been verified by me. I know, I know, this sounds like "trust me." I'm sorry about that. My sources are the archived issues of the Tower itself from 1925 through 2006. I wish I could simply point people at Google or something, but not all history can be found a click away, sorry :) (If that were true, maybe Wikipedia would be less relevant. Or maybe not. That's a more complex topic!) What I CAN say is that I know of at least one source for these texts and that is the local library where they are stored. If you'd like more information or would like to know more about a specific fact or claim in this section, I would be happy to direct you to the source if you're in the Princeton area, or if I have time make appropriate photocopies, etc. You can e-mail me at galdosd at gmail dot com. Again, apologies for the somewhat "trust me" attitude, but it's not exactly just me. Not all books and information collections can (yet, as of 2006) be found on the web, that's just a fact... for now! D. G. 01:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't old issues of the Tower used to be online? Are there problems with the servers? You could maybe go yell at Peter Thompson about it if you are there and want them to be back up. Makemi 20:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they did but (1) they only went back to 2001 or so anyway. Maybe as far back as late 1990s at best, May 1996 so relative to the full scope not that much. and (2) not anymore. They don't really have ti together anymore I guess. Used to be phstower.org but it has been down for months. The latest issue of the Tower specifically acknowledges this, replacing references to the website with references to an e-mail address.  D. G. 01:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Say, who is Peter Thompson? Not anyone at PHS anymore, anyhow. D. G. 01:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: And not anyone who worked with the tower on or after 2000, going by google cache of phstower.org's staff pages. D. G. 01:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verification of information in re the Tower

message: *Okay, let's get this straight for once and for all. What are we going to name the page? --RabidMonkeysEatGrass 00:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: The "banner" graphic on the PHS Web site says 08542, but every other place I found on the site says 08540, including PDFs of official documents like the school profile.  I think whoever made the graphic made a mistake.  See for example
* http://phs.prs.k12.nj.us/Guidance/guidanceserv.html
* http://phs.prs.k12.nj.us/Guidance/PHSprofile04-05.pdf
* http://phs.prs.k12.nj.us/Guidance/courseofstudies2005-06/index.html
* http://phs.prs.k12.nj.us/Guidance/courseofstudies2006-07/index.html
* http://phs.prs.k12.nj.us/Guidance/courseofstudies2006-07/courseofstudies06-07.pdf
* http://phs.prs.k12.nj.us/Guidance/PHSprofile2003-04.pdf
* http://athletics.prs.k12.nj.us/Directions-for-PHS-sports.pdf
PHS letterhead also says 08540.  
BTW, according to ZIP Code(!), 08542 is used for deliveries in the central area of the borough of Princeton, and also some PO boxes. PHS is at the very edge of the borough, not in the central area. Bob schwartz 02:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I'll change it. Mak (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ZIP code 

message: About a month or two ago (?), User:WhisperToMe revamped the PHS article to state Borough of Princeton everywhere, including in the address (!!!) and in the first line of the article, etc. Simultaneously, (and perhaps this ought to be discussed seperately, I admit) he added a "Feeder patterns" section which redundantly restates that all students in Princeton (legally both the Borough and the Township, to be specific for him) and in Cranbury enter PHS.
I'm not sure if the article mentioned whether PHS was physically located in the Township or the Borough previously, but I edited the article after his edits to make it more clear and clean, removing the excessive blabbing about the Borough and stating the school's legal location in the first named section. The redundant feeder patterns section I also removed after ensuring that that information had been adequately treated where it belonged.
WhisperToMe has, quite a while later, now reinserted the Borough references all over as well as his redundant Feeder patterns section. I'm starting a talk section for us to agree on a consensus on this in the interests of avoiding a revert war. For the time being, I'm reverting the article to its former state since it would seem to me that no one has any problem with that other than WhisperToMe. 
For reference, here's a copy of his justification on my talk page:
:I have reverted several of your edits because they take out necessary information.
:Removing the fact that the school is located in the borough of Princeton does NOT make it more concise. The borough of Princeton has its own fire department, city codes, etc. It is a completely separate entity from the Princeton Township.
:Also, all high schools must keep their "Feeder patterns" section, because it tells what schools "Feed" into the high school. Removing that section makes the article a worse encyclopedia article.
In response to which I say, the information is not necessary-- it is redundant. The article already states that the school is located legally in the Borough in the first named section, and the Feeder patterns information is stated in the article lead itself! All high schools must keep their feeder patterns sections you say? Sounds like bunk to me. A foolish consistency, and what not. Removing that section makes an article that is easier to read because it is less filled with redundant bunk.
In addition, I think WhisperToMe has a mistaken impression of the "Two Princetons" situation. He is (and I mean no disrespect by this) a Texan who as far as I know, at least knows about the two Princetons from reading Wikipedia. Please do not take me wrong, I don't mean to make a personal attack or imply that only those who are personally familiar with Princeton have the authority to edit an article related to it. I only mean to say that WhisperToMe's impression is wrong, and subsequently the edits which are made while under that impression are also.
Thoughts from others, please? If you comment, perhaps you could note whether you support or oppose WhisperToMe's edits? Thanks. D. G. 03:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO it makes sense for the "legal" location to be in the lead of the article, not in the infobox which gives the address (since the address is Princeton, not the Borough), and to leave it out for the rest of the article. As far as feeder patterns go, I have no particular feeling, but I have to say the section on the choir is thoroughly bloated. Mak (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm in agreement with your in the lead but not with the infobox idea :) WhisperToMe 02:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WhisperToMe's Feeder Patterns & Borough/Township edits