Talk:Centinela Valley Union High School District

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CVUHSD[edit]

I'm confused how to proceed. ['K, like mebbe I dunt understand circular redirection and "all category" pages, but I figgured enuf out] started here in grammar/sense, checking originals 4 meaning. Then added meaningful internal/external links - and wah-la, 1 fair intro. But I dont have much to say about CVUHSD [Centinela Valley Union High School District] or da [California High School Districts] in general - and anyway while Wiki as yet lacks such a general article, This Article really needs 'n' would use et to explain the changing shapes of the CVUHSD. So...what to do.
As suggested at LHS page, I merged the stubbby Lawndale High page herein; OK....ok fine . . . *deep breath* Then I discover an X-10sive Hawthorne High page. omg, Rawk on, Hawthorne.
cf.:Lawndale High School the initial WikiProject Schools-template box; we learn, to wit: 'non-notable' stubby High School articles should be merged, under their districts', but only if they're non-'notable'. Hawthorne High is so beyond 'noted' and well into 'stellar prominence' re: 2 generations of famed musicians inThe Beach Boys and Redd Kross. Only now do I recall: Lawndale High School has some big rappers or something - mayber generations of notable musician alumni. So: screw ['merging']. It's fascist, efficiency-obsessed [bureaucratic] anal-centralized micro-management compulsion which should one day be linked to scrapie and implicated in catastophic global climate change like the gassing it is .

The Hawthorne High School (Hawthorne, California) page is re-installed in it's own right and becomes another link within CVUHSD here under "Campuses", as does Lawndale High School. It gets complicated with Lloyde which may not have a single dedicated web page; I canna tell so I've linked all the 3 primary sources that I can find.
So.. still got a stub here? BTW -4micromanagers-just now figgered out *Doi!* to 'preview' more and 'save' less--clean my n00b. ∆∆∆ Hilarleo 03:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

explanation of changes[edit]

GeorgeLouis asked me to explain changes. Here I go:

  • External links in the body of the article are improper. Wikipedia is not a directory, I turned these external links into references.
  • Having all of these external links duplicated in the External Links section is not correct. There only needs to be one official external link. For instance, linking to High School A doesn't make sense because it's up to CVUHSD to link there from the CVUHSD website and we have an article for the high schools. Finally, the links are preserved in the references section.
  • I moved a link that was in the references section down to the external links section.

GeorgeLouis, can you give your objection to these changes? tedder (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to deleting duplicated links, but I can't see the problem with linking directly to the high school or other sites affiliated with this school district. Maybe I am missing something? I reviewed WP:External links (in a hurry, I admit). Sincerely, and thanks for your attention, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to it in the article body or in the external links section? In the article body, see WP:CITE#Embedded links: "Embedded links should never be used to place external links in the body of an article". For in the EL section, see WP:ELOFFICIAL. In other words, only one official link is necessary. For instance, in an article on Foo Corporation, an official link to Foo Corporation is appropriate; additional links to "jobs at foo", "foo's main product", "foo's press releases" would not be. Further rationale can be seen in the first guideline under WP:ELNO. Mainly, the intent is to make this not a directory of links, but make it resemble a stub or starter article. Thanks, tedder (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let us not forget WP:NORULES. The links at the bottom of the page increase the value of the page to the reader. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In cases like this, you don't need a link to each component of the district. A link to the district site is sufficient. From there, readers can go to the related websites if they choose to read further into the specifics of the district. In the end, the topic is the school district, not the associated schools and districts, therefore the links need to be directly relevant to the topic of the article, not simply related and should be official sites as well. The external links policy and the guidelines for school articles (and most other wikiprojects) generally discourage using anything beyond the official page if any links at all (i.e. it would be better to have no external links than have too many). About the only other external link that would be appropriate, in my opinion, would be a direct link to the state report card for the district itself. What should be done here is expand the article so that many of the current external links could at least be used as citations (like the associated elementary districts, for example). Because each high school already has an article, there is no reason to duplicate the external links for them here (like their respective alumni pages). If articles exist or are created for the associated elementary districts, those could be linked here as well. There should also be a brief explanation of the purpose of the district and its relationships with the elementary districts as a "high school district" is not widely used to my knowledge. Most school districts in the U.S. are K-12. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually quite a number of union high school districts listed in Wikipedia, and an article about union districts in general. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=Union+High+school+district&fulltext=Search. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Union School District" itself is an ambiguous term and the Wikipedia article, which references the California Education Code, is about the term as it applies in California, along with the terms for "Union high school district" and "Joint union school district". In other words, the vast majority of readers are not going to be familiar with the concept. In Ohio and much of the east, historically, a "union school district" was a concept in the 1850s and 1860s where small schoolhouse districts were consolidated into a single "union" district, which often met at a single "union school" building. The sentence you added with the wikilink to Union school district is perfect. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My two bits:
Per WP:ELNO points #4, #13, the alumni sites should not be listed. They are only tangentially related to the topic, an though almost certainly not by intent, their presence constitutes an attempt to drum up people visiting those sites, instead of providing helpful auxiliary content.
Also from ELNO: Choose the minimum number of links that provide readers with the maximum amount of information. I think this sums up the concern when the EL section is as long as the rest of the article.
One suggestion: Rather than having external links to every high school, which I really think violates the spirit of WP:ELNO, why not create articles for those schools, and then create a box for the bottom of the articles (such as the one for the Chicago Public League found at the bottom of this article.
As for the elementary schools ... since their sites can be accessed from the district website, and are simply not notable, they really shouldn't be linked. The topic is "Union Valley High School District", and those links are not providing additional information about the district. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find links to the elementary schools that feed CVUHSD at the District website; there were no readily apparent links to the elementary school districts either. Union school districts in California have a boundary based on the combined area of two or more elementary districts, but they generally have no other official relationship--one is not subsidiary to the other or provide direction and assistance to the other. Although I added links to the WP articles about the elementary distrricts that weren't already linked, there are a couple without articles yet. Until those articles are written, it makes perfect sense to include external links to those districts' websites. The elementary districts will have information about their territories, their demographics, their history, and other things that are not on the SCVUHSD site, aren't in this article, and may never be in either. At least some of the readers interested in the subject of this article will be interested in the towns and elementary districts served by the high school district; the links would be encyclopedic and would improve the article.--Hjal (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This can be solved without external links at the end, though if any are added back, those would be the only exceptions as long as no articles exist on those districts. First, of course, would be to create articles on the elementary districts. I'm not sure how they would fare with notability, but since California has a setup that is somewhat unusual, I don't see why we couldn't have articles on the districts, even if the schools within each district likely won't be notable. Second would be to expand this article to include a section or sections on the associated elementary districts or at least elaborate briefly on the relationship. The citations would most likely have a link to those respective websites. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting discussion, but it still doesn't change my mind that the links at the bottom of the page provide a service to the reader and help identify and illustrate what kind of school district is the CVUHSD. In short, they improve the content of the page and do no harm to it although they might be seen as violating some "rule," and WP "rules" are there for guidance, not for a mandate. As for the links to "elementary schools" which are "simply not notable," the links don't go to individual school pages, they go to district sites within CVUHSD, and I believe that individual school districts ARE notable. All of these links provide information, and they are all noncommercial. So far as the WP article on union school districts goes, I hold no brief for it, and it anybody wants to enlarge and expand it to include Midwestern, Southern and Eastern states, I say, Go right ahead and improve WP! Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Wikipedia works by consensus, not simply by what I want or what you want. While they are all guidelines, they were made for a reason and the consensus from experienced editors is that the current links need to be removed. All external links need to be directly relevant to the topic at hand and most of these aren't. As for the union school comment, I already said what you included was fine. My point was addressing your comment about "other union school districts are listed". While that may be true, that doesn't mean anyone knows what on earth a "union high school district" is outside the state of California. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed all but the district's official page link. The alumni pages aren't necessary here, nor are the individual high school sites since each school has a respective Wikipedia article linked here, where those links are appropriate. On top of that there are links to each high school's website on the district site itself; no need to duplicate that here. The feeder districts should have their own articles and that's where the external link for each of them should be. Mentioning them and their association within the body of the article is appropriate; having external links to them is not (unless they are being used as inline citations) since this article is not about them. To find further info about the subject of the article, CVUHSD, a reader would go to the district's website. Every other link was to something other than the district, either something related to or associated, but not the district itself. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) While it appears that JonRidinger and I agree in principle that these links largely need to go, this is a Request for comment. While there is currently a consensus for removal, I think it is wise to wait a bit to see if other opinions chime in. I don't think there is any reason to rush into this. Especially with the holidays being observed in much of the English speaking world, lets give editors a chance to chime in. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note while it is true that WP:NORULES allows for improving Wikipedia in contravention of rules, it does not allow for contravention of consensus. Personally, I think the consensus is not currently supporting a keep to those links (easy for me to say because I agree with that). However, I think we ought to wait a few days before making a move. If consensus doesn't change, or strengthens in this direction, then editors may need to consider alternatives. Just something to think about. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) So far, several guidelines have been cited as reasons for removal. Tedder also supported removal on the grounds of WP:EL and WP:NOT and began this discussion as a courtesy for GeorgeLouis. The excess links dominate the page and add nothing to the article beyond clutter. The article needs content expansion (i.e. improvement), not a long list of tangential external links. The only opposition to removal has so far been along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:NORULES. This is a pretty clear-cut case as far as guidelines go and let us not forget: "Ignore all rules" is not in itself a valid answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule. Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons." There is definitely a reason several guidelines on external links have been written; they can easily get out of hand. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I've been watching this discussion and I'll just chime in at this point to say that I concur with Jon on all points and that his rationale appears to be a lucid interpretation of our current policies. The links were innocuous, but they just don't belong here. Kudpung (talk) 05:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There does not appear to be a strong case for IAR, consensus not required, and if it were, the consensus here is to remove the links.Kudpung (talk) 06:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that your idea of "consensus" is a bit warped. I suggest you look the term up in any good dictionary. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, consensus doesn't mean unanimity. Second, the consensus mentioned here reflects the greater consensus of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; see also WP:CONLIMITED. If you feel this article or wikipedia in general is best served by being a directory of links, it's counter to the overarching consensus and the local consensus. Being DMOZ doesn't meet any part of the consensus of Wikipedia, as seen in countless policies, guidelines, and discussions. tedder (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First off, no one here has warped ideas, let's all keep everything cool and friendly ... we all want to see the article improved, and have a small difference of opinion on how part of the article should go. Let's let this run a 1-2 more days, and then proceed once we have allowed others to jump in. I think there is a consensus to remove the links. I don't think that there is a set number of days this should remain open, but there should be a chance for others to register their thoughts before making a move either way. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With other editors showing up, you might want to break off a segment above and retitled it with "external links" or some topic so the arriving editor can easily figure out the question.
I hope I have! It appears to me that you have at least three very qualified and experienced editors on here that one editor is ignoring in favor of arguing. We don't encourage links at the bottom. Too many are boring. Article is about school district not individual schools. Imbedded external links don't go into article.
And for the qualified editors, you really may need to call in an admin here. And (sorry) go to mediation. Ouch! Another way is to lock the article, I suppose. But that never works! Bye! Student7 (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I had assumed the arguer was a newbie! You do have your hands full! I'm outta here!  :) Student7 (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point I made was that this external link issue, as Tedder explains quite eloquently - and citing sources - cannot be governed be any consensus that may or may not be reached here either for or against. The use of external links is is laid down by a consensus that has already been reached by policy makers elsewhere. We implement that policy by removing links that do not comply.
On the procedural questions: this is not an official debate or RfC, it does not requires (and won't get) administrative closure, and any of the notice boards will probably reject any claims, and simply refer to the policies that have already been cited. Anyone doubting this could always ask at WP:EAR which is a kind of first level dispute resolution board. --Kudpung (talk) 19:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, it would be appropriate for local consensus to ignore something like WP:EL with enough reason to do so. That's what IAR is for. However, there's no local consensus for that, and ignoring rules doesn't result in a better article. tedder (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was already mentioned above by you or Jon that to apply IAR here would not be appropriate. To that I would add that given the lack of solid reasoning for keeping the edits against all rules, would be plain WP:POINT - as most of the arguments for keeping the edits are.Kudpung (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish names[edit]

Also:

  • "ESCUELA DE ESTUDIO INDEPENDIENTE DEL VALLE DE CENTINELA" - "Hoja de Información." (Archive) - Distrito Escolar del Valle de Centinela

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More:

The header of the web browser (equivalent to the HTML title) states "DISTRITO ESCOLAR DE CENTINELA VALLEY UHSD" when it is viewed in a browser, but the actual document seems to be in English: http://www.centinela.k12.ca.us/pdf/Notice of Rights and Responsibilities - English 08-09.pdf - (Archive) WhisperToMe (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox & article improvements[edit]

I spent a few hours adding some details to the article, creating an infobox, and trying to link to some external references appropriately until the article could be built up enough to provide a complete description of the district using appropriate in-line references. The infobox was just replaced with a less-preferred variation, Infobox school district, resulting in the deletion of most of my work, with none of the sourced information moved into the article and with two excellent references deleted. Note that the schools project does not support this change, and instead says, "Some USA school districts have custom infoboxes, see Category:Education infobox templates, however the US generic Infobox school should prefereably be used." [1] I am going to revert this and request that any changes be discussed here. I am quite aware that the infobox is too long for the article, but the problem is primarily with the article--it is barely more than a stub. Quibbling over external links to official sites with encyclopedic information not already included in the article is not a sensible way to move the project forward.--Hjal (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask the following -- why is it considered better to have a "school" infobox on an article for a "school district" instead of a "school district" infobox? If anyone wants to make a custom infobox for a district and see if it stands up to consensus, I'm all for that ... but replacing a proper infobox with one that is inappropriate for the article ... while I wouldn't consider it disruptive, I think that some people would.
Hjal, you note that Note that the schools project does not support this change. Could you cite where the project does not support the position of placing appropriate infoboxes into articles, over less appropriate infoboxes. As an editor, I need to know if I did something against consensus, and as a member of the project, I want to know if I am not certain about the project's stand on the use of proper/less proper infoboxes.
I do agree that the length of the infobox is irrelevant. When the article is expanded by someone who nows something about this district, any aesthetic issues will no longer be an issue. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside ... if any member of the Schools project can explain how I screwed up, feel free to jump in ... I'm not trying to put Hjal on the spot. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen anything on the schools project that prefers using the schools infobox over the district one in a school district article and I'm wondering what is the basis for the preference of not using the infobox created specifically for this kind of article. I think there are several school district articles that use the basic school infobox simply because it's older. If you are going to use the basic schools infobox, please make sure you remove the unused and non-applicable parameters. That was probably one of the reasons behind making a separate school district infobox, mostly because many of the parameters were being used incorrectly between schools and districts. Also, the "website" parameter is for the school district's official website, not other external links.
Please become familiar with the difference between the two kinds of dashes. This kind of dash – , known as the "en dash" should be between numbers. The longer dash — , known as the "em dash" is for breaking a line of thought and shouldn't be between the grade numbers as you reverted it back to. See Dash#En dash. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the infobox and noticed the extra links I saw were in the footnotes, not the website section. Footnotes, though, shouldn't be simply bare links or general references. I put "ref" brackets around them so they appear in references, though if they are being used as citations, they should be properly cited after the data they reference. A footnote would be any extra detail on a particular number or line of info that doesn't fit in the normal location. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Centinela Valley Union High School District. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Centinela_Valley_Union_High_School_District&oldid=1200733849"