Jump to content

Talk:Robinson Secondary School

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

Is a separate page for the school football team really necessary? --Nlu 03:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

[edit]

I have suggested that this article's splinter articles be merged here. They are Coffey Stadium, Smith Field House, and Harry M. Shimdt Ballpark. There is no reason to mention the schools stadiums in thier own articles. Movementarian 11:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Largest School

[edit]

I am aware that robinson is the largest public school, but is is also true that Westfield is the largest high school. Upon reading the sentence about Robinson being the largest public school, and just before that the words "Robinson Secondary School", I would infer that Robinson is the largest high school, wich is why I put in that line. I would like to put it back in. KeepOnTruckin 23:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it actually larger than Lake Braddock? Does this mean the physical facility or number of students? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.88.40 (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who actually has compiled all of this damn data?

[edit]

Seriously? I would freaking love to know. I know a lot about the history of RHS but this compendium of minutia is fucked up, even for Wikipedia standards. Dayum.

Well, back in May 2006, you or someone using the same IP address added three paragraphs about the band program. You can see who added the other stuff by looking in the page history. FlamingSilmaril (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feeders?

[edit]

White Oaks was incorrectly attributed as a feeder elementary school to Robinson. It clearly is a feeder to Lake Braddock, as it is in LB's school pyramid. ( http://www.fcps.edu/suptapps/schoolprofile/profile.cfm?profile_id=387 )

White Oaks is a "Gifted and Talented Center" so maybe they meant that some of the GT students end up at Robinson instead of Braddock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.82.163 (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Way too much promotional material

[edit]

This article has far too much soapboxing. Others, please expand-I haven't the time. Thank you loads!74.110.198.236 (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Please remove the promotional material (yet again). Thanks a lot...74.110.198.236 (talk) 02:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe Burst

[edit]

There happened to be a recent pipe burst. Should we include it? Zeldafan3242! :) 22:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was the pipe burst covered in independent reliable sources? Like for example, a local newspaper? If so, then yes you could consider including details based on what is said in those independent reliable sources; although there might still be debate as to how relevant it is to the article.
If no independent reliable sources talk about the pipe burst, then definitely do not include it. As you can probably see, the article already has way too much unsourced information in it.
Some relevant further reading is at WP:V and Wikipedia:Recentism. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]