Talk:Ingraham High School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Schools This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Schools Portal
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within Schools. Please rate the article.

I have reverted this article's contents again, since the alternate version seems full of content that is either unencyclopaedic, or at least irrelevant to anyone reading this article who does not attend the school. For instance, while I'm sure Tracie Huffer is a very nice person, and is important to the people of Ingraham H.S., she probably isn't notable enough to warrant inclusion in a Wikipedia article. In fact, most of the content that I removed falls under this category - I'm sure it's important to those within the Ingraham community, but not to the world at large. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 07:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Michael Lang: I think you have a basic misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for. I agree that much of the "lore" that you've added would make Ingraham's Wikipedia useful and interesting. Sadly, Ingraham doesn't have its own Wikipedia - there's just one, and it's for everyone. This article should be one befitting an encyclopedia. A list of your friends as "notable students" is by no means encyclopedic. If you really want a place for this, setting up your own wiki for your high school could be great fun - my college dorm has a wiki with all sorts of fun things on it. However, you can't take over Wikipedia's article on Ingraham for this purpose.

This does not mean all your changes are bad. I was more-or-less willing to let them be until I saw what you did to that rival high school's page, which showed bad faith. A section on the school newspaper could certainly be notable, and the candyman might be (I'm dubious since I suspect strongly that you or one of your close friends is he), but they stand to be purged along with your list of "notable students" and other unencyclopedic vanity sections. LWizard @ 10:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)




Thank you, Lizard. Well said.

Contents

[edit] Lang.mc

Mike Lang, Please stop adding vanity content about yourself (Haymarket, war protest article, etc.)

[edit] ..

just because the objects of interest do involve lang.mc does not qualify them solely as vanity content.

[edit] mc.lang's problem with vanity

Please see the vanity guidelines at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vanity_guidelines

As a general rule, if the content you add is about yourself and is added because nobody else thinks it is noteworthy to the topic, it is vanity based.

[edit] from Talk:Haymarket herald

whoever flagged this page...why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misszimmerman (talk • contribs)

I did. It is a school magazine founded last year, with three published issues. The question is how that is important to the rest of the world? Has there has been anything written about the magazine in larger newspapers, for instance? You need independent sources to make the article verifiable to people not directly concerned or involved. Otherwise it constitutes what is called original research, which is against policy. (Check the links - those are key Wikipedia policies!) Is the magazine itself even available in larger libraries, such as the Library of Congress or the major U.S. university libraries?
I am probably not going to nominate this article for deletion, as it is pretty harmless, but I expect somebody else will. You may consider merging it to an article on the school, as articles on schools are hardly ever deleted. But the issue of verifiability remains. u p p l a n d 07:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haymarket

This "Magazine" doesn't appear to even be a school publication. It looks to be just another "underground" rag.

[edit] Reintroduction of the Candyman section

Since it seems as if the debate as to whether or not the Candyman section was vanity or not took place before this article was published, I have reintroduced the Candyman section mainly on the basis that it is noteworthy, since it was published in a secondary, unaffiliated source (The Seattle Times).Immortal Wowbagger (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

24.22.146.101's revert of your changes was uncalled for, especially since they didn't use an edit summary. Reverting with the default edit summary is supposed to only be used for vandalism, not for removing something they disagree with. Since the Candyman thing is cited, I don't see why there's a problem with it. The only suggestion I'd make is to shorten it a bit (for example, don't list the amounts of money raised). Somno (talk) 04:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)