Talk:Stow-Munroe Falls High School/Archive 1

Archive 1

Discussion

I am opening for discussion the recent removal of two external links (Stow-Munroe Falls Band Website, Stow-Munroe Falls Speech and Debate Website). The comment was "not a web directory...school and athletics site sufficient". Comparing the Band, Athletics, and Speech/Debate pages: - all three seem to have calendars and information about there focus - the Speech/Debate may seem more like a blog with a login - Band and Athletics link to the school, currently Speech/Debate does not - The school site does link to Athletics and Band (via http://www.smfcsd.org/upcoming.html), but not Speech/Debate. The school may someday add Speech/Debate, since it also lists Orchestra and Choir - Athletics seems to be done by a corporation, the other two are registered in Whois to Stow Teachers

Based on this, I consider the removal of one extra curricular external website while leaving any other to be discrimination.

As for Wikipedia being not a web directory, why would four external links be considered excessive while Wikipedia pages for Elton John, Lord of the Rings, or even Stow, Ohio be considered okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clear like ice (talk • contribs) 17:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well you do have to discriminate on Wikipedia: what's notable and what isn't. I think you have a point about the athletics site though athletics are usually one of the most notable aspects of a school (and yes, I'm an arts person!) whether for good or bad. Perhaps simply the school website is sufficient as it usually has links to other sites and is the most directly relevant site to the topic. Also don't forget the flip side: other student groups may feel they should also be included. See how that could get out of control? Slowly it becomes a web directory again. The main point is whether or not the group is notable on its own and most are not. And yes, there are many other examples of pages with excessive links, but that doesn't mean this article should have them. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Jon. Would also have you look at WP:EL, particularly the following: "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." & "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material" -- Lucas20 (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

There have been a lot of extraordinary claims inserted here recently that are unsourced and do not meet the criteria for inclusion here. If they are backed up with references to reliable sources, please list them here so there can be consensus on what to add here. See WP:PEACOCK too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• From the person editing Stow Latin Club, etc.:

I've revised previous entries and have included links. Below is a sample-- would be happy to properly cite and format if and when page is reopened for editing:

The Stow Latin Club operates much like any other student club or organization at Stow-Munroe Falls High School while simultaneously participating within the Junior Classical League (JCL), a national youth organization of junior and senior high school students dedicated to the promotion and appreciation of classical civilization. Most Latin club members are individually members of the JCL, and the Stow Latin Club is itself a local chapter of the Ohio JCL (OJCL). The Ohio JCL is in turn the state chapter of the National Junior Classical League (NJCL).

Both the OJCL and NJCL hold annual conventions where member delegates interact and compete in classically oriented events, academic and of the arts. It is at the OJCL State Convention (held every year in Columbus, Ohio) where the Stow Latin Club has repeatedly and consistently dominated, having in the past claimed consecutive overall statewide victories for nearly three decades.

http://www.stowsentry.com/news/article/4438487

http://www.stow.summit.k12.oh.us/walloffame.html

http://www.publicschoolreview.com/school_ov/school_id/62854

http://www.ohiojcl.org/conv/index.html

http://www.ohiojcl.org/conv/index2.html

http://ohiojcl.org/conv/04/overall.pdf

http://ohiojcl.org/0405/2005_overall_school.pdf

http://ohiojcl.org/conv/06/06_overall_and_percap.pdf

This section could be reduced to a few sentences. Remember, the main subject of the article is Stow-Munroe Falls High School, not the National Junior Classical League, so explanations about state and local chapters and the conventions are not needed here since they are merely tangential. As for the sources, your best one is the Wall of Fame link from the district. Normally I'd say the newspaper link is the best, but it seems to be merely a press release from the district's page rather than an actual article. The publicschoolreview.com link fails to meet reliability mostly because the "school highlights" section uses Wikipedia as a source, so it can't be used back on Wikipedia as a source. The remaining sources are more relevant to the Junior Classical League and the ranking sources merely establish that Stow has won the last three years, so they really aren't needed with the first source. Here's how I would word it:

The school has a Latin Club which participates in competitions of the National Junior Classical League. The club has consistently performed well at the state level, including 28 consecutive state titles from 1973-2006

To find how to best format your sources, see WP:CITET.

I know it seems drastic, but remember the purpose of this article: to educate about Stow-Munroe Falls High School. It's very rare to have a school club that is notable enough to require a lengthy section in an article, even an athletic team. Most of the information about the academic teams can be summed up in one paragraph or even a few small sections. If people reading this want to know more about the Junior Classical League, they can follow the link to that specific article. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

• Again from the person editing Stow Latin Club, etc.:

Any mention of the club would be great. Could you (JonRidinger) edit the page to what you suggested since it is still semi-protected? Just one note-- the club actually won from 1979 on, not 1973. I know the school district link seems to say from 1973 on, but McCaffrey's clubs did not win the state title during his first few years with the district (hence the funny math). The school district link merely confirms that there was a streak that lasted for 28 years. To confirm when the winning streak actually began, I'd suggest using this link (which actually contains more information upon closer inspection): http://ohiojcl.org/0405/2005_overall_school.pdf Note that at the bottom of the pdf-file pages the words "Congratulations to Stow as they achieved the top overall ranking for the 27th consecutive year." This link, along with the school district link, confirms that Stow won for 28 consecutive years beginning in 1979. Thanks.

I've cancelled out the above 'semi-protected edit request' template, because it would seem that this is actually a request for JonRidinger (talk · contribs). I have also added a note to their talk page. I see that they are an active user, so hopefully they will see this request fairly soon. If you do need somebody else to edit the semi-protected page, please reinstate the template. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  03:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. To the anonymous editor, I highly recommend registering for an account here and making a user page. Establishing yourself as an editor will help you in more ways than one. Another point I found interesting in looking at the 2006 source is that the state convention has an overall winner and a "per capita" winner since each school sends a different amount of attendees. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm also going to edit the other academic teams since the sections about them are largely unsourced and/or contain high amounts of tangential material or excessive details. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Again from the person editing Stow Latin Club, etc.:

Thank you. In regards to the "per capita" winner, that award refers strictly to academic contests (tests), hence its name: "academic per capita." The overall sweepstakes victory which Stow repeatedly claimed includes all state convention contests-- academic and artistic (graphic and creative arts). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.103.117 (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It also has to do with the score based on the number of participants according to the brief description ("per capita") which would explain why Stow was ranked further down given their large delegation. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Fancruft

I removed quite a bit of information in the bands and academic teams sections of the article. I did so because most of it falls under fancruft. In other words, there is too much detail for something that has limited notability and relativity to the article. The only specific clubs and teams that should be mentioned are really ones that have won state titles or finished highly ranked consistently at the state and/or national levels. One 3rd place state finish does not establish notability. Both the science olympiad and speech and debate sections were completely unsourced and lacked any kind of notability. In the bands section, the only things that really need to be listed are the names of the various bands, the types (auditioned? certain instruments? etc.) and where/when they play (like marching band plays at football games from August through November). There is really no need to list audition requirements or procedures. Just remember...the subject is Stow-Munroe Falls High School, so the subsections need to reflect that and not go into tangeants about the specific club or team. Keep these things in mind for any future sections involving clubs and athletic teams. The vast majority are not notable enough to need their own section or even a specific mention besides as part of a list. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the acronyms that were being used for the Junior Classical League and the academic challenge tournaments and corrected the wikilink. The wikilink "Junior Classical League" redirects to "National Junior Classical Leauge" and we should always avoid redirects. As for the acronyms, they are only needed if they are used later in the section, which they aren't. Also, I replaced "long participated in" because it is a point of view term. Being part of something since around 1973 may be long for some people, but not all. Just stick with the facts. Since it mentions Stow's streak of titles from 1979, readers can make their own deductions how "long" they have participated. Again, these teams have very low notability, so having a team history really isn't appropriate in this article; that is what a school or team website is for. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Reminder

Just a friendly reminder about external links. This was discussed a little while ago by myself and another editor (see top of this discussion page under subheading "Discussion"). In general, there should be few if any external links, so the district and school website links are enough. See WP:EL for more information about the Wikipedia policy. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources

Make sure when a source is used in the article that it actually supports what it is being used for and is not being used as a conjecture. The source for Haley Bennett merely states she lived in Stow for a time; nowhere does it say she ever attended SMFHS. I'm not saying she didn't, but there is currently no source stating not only when she attended but if she ever did at all. The other alumni sources do use terms like "Stow grad" to indicate the person went to the school. Even if a yearbook could be used to show both that and 'when she was a student there. Also, in the list use the name that is used for the Wikipedia article title since it is usually the most well-known and recognized name (which is why it was chosen for the title in the first place). --JonRidinger (talk) 05:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

New source added solves the problem with Haley Bennett. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Placement of sources

Thanks for continuing to add sources to make this article accurate. One word about where to put them: generally, place the inline citation right after the thought, fact, or idea it is supporting. That may or may not be at the end of a sentence and is often in the middle of a sentence. If the citation occurs at a punctuation mark (period, colon, semicolon, or comma) place the citation after the mark. The best thing to avoid is a bunch of citations at the end of a paragraph or sentence that support different facts within a section. It makes it easier for editors to verify what is in the article and for readers to follow the references. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Explanation

While it's not worth an edit war and I don't really care all that much, the reason I removed "AP" from in front of the names of the various AP classes offered here is because it is redundant. Since the line already says "from several Advanced Placement courses:" one would assume that the courses listed following that are indeed AP courses. It's much like saying "I got up this morning at 2 AM" or saying "Cleveland has the following professional sports teams: the Cleveland Browns, the Cleveland Indians, and the Cleveland Cavaliers." --JonRidinger (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinks

Generally, you don't need to include the acronym or initials for an organization unless they are used later in the article, which is why I included "PACE" and "NAQT" after their respective full names. Even then, there really isn't a need to include those initials in the wikilink since it simply is adding extra text into the actual article. Having the initials outside the wikilink is fine if they're needed at all. Also, grammatically, remember that sentences need to agree in terms of their tense. Since the 2008-09 school year is over, any mention of events which occurred during it should be in the past. Saying "For the 2008-09 school year..." suggests future or present tense. Also, in terms of the wikilink to Academic Challenge (Ohio), generally try to wikilink the word or words that are as close to the article title as possible. Saying "Ohio version" before Academic Challenge could be confusing since mention of both NAQT and PACE followed after, so it could be misread as the "Ohio version" of all three. Wikilinking "Ohio version" for "Academic Challenge" would work best in a general Academic Challenge article. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources and Fancruft

I removed several sources or moved them around. First, in the lead and the infobox, if the information is sourced in the body of the article, it does not need a citation in either the lead or box because those two items are summarizing the article. Only highly controversial statements would need an additional citation in the lead or infobox even if it had a citation in the body of the article. There isn't anything controversial or questionable in either the infobox or the lead in this article. See WP:LEADCITE. In the Latin Club section, I removed several sources because they really aren't needed. The main fact is that the club won 28 consecutive state titles, a streak that ended in 2006. I left two sources, but could've just as easily done it with one source. The sources I removed were simply results from previous competitions and therefore didn't directly support the main claim of 28 consecutive titles. I also removed the mention of the details surrounding the team that was the main "challenger" and the team that ultimately ended the run as this falls under excessive detail or fancruft. While interesting, they really aren't that important in understanding the main subject and are far more trivial than they are encyclopedic. The important info is that Stow has a Latin Club which has has notable accomplishments at the state and national levels of competition in the Junior Classical League. --JonRidinger (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:LEADCITE: "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material."

The lead does not repeat information in the body. The lead provides facts (school location, approx. enrollment, etc.) which are not stated in the article itself: e.g., there are citations which refer to the article's subject as "Stow High School" (an alternate name), however nowhere is this information explicitly presented in the article itself.

"Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body..." In this case, the lead does not generalize or summarize any information found in the body. Nothing is said about the school's academics, activities, athletics, notable alumni, etc. (all of which form the basis for the body's content).

As for the Latin Club citations, I think the user who started this section will agree that the 28-years-of-wins claim is somewhat extraordinary (see user's earlier input here and here). Having multiple sources from various publications (and at different times during the win-streak) supports this claim -- after viewing the evidence as a whole, there is little or no room left to challenge that the Stow Latin Club won 28 years in a row. I agree that the info on the other schools isn't necessary as it did not relate directly the article's subject. MisterE2123two (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

We do not need more than one citation that the school is referred to as "Stow High School"; that's pretty much a given that a school with a name as long as "Stow-Munroe Falls High School" would be shortened to Stow. We also don't need sources establishing that the school is located in Stow, Ohio, that Stow is located in northeastern Ohio, and that Stow is a suburb of Akron or even that it is part of the Stow-Munroe Falls City Schools. Facts that are blatantly obvious don't need sources and are hardly controversial or questionable. Now, if it said the school "is a top-ranked school..." yes that would need some kind of source even in the lead. The enrollment IS sourced in the infobox; the number in the lead is an estimate (i.e. "general"), so the source used for it isn't needed nor totally accurate.

I agree that the lead doesn't totally summarize the article, but that's because it still needs expanded. Again, only challengeable facts that are unique to the lead should be cited (particularly dealing with statistics). Notice, the keyphrase challengeable material from the policy quoted; the majority of the information in an article like this isn't challengeable or controversial. Really, the lead should be written last in an article so it can more accurately summarize. That being said, just because the lead is not in complete form doesn't mean we need to have duplicate reference markings in it or the infobox.

The 28 consecutive streak isn't as extraordinary as you seem to believe. Remember, most people have never even heard of Junior Classical League, so winning 28 titles in it doesn't mean a whole lot to the average reader. And again, only one source actually states the school won 28 consecutive titles, so that's really all you need. I don't know of any editor who would challenge that statement with the one source given or the reliability of the source. Having links to previous titles doesn't necessarily prove there were 28 (unless you have them for ALL 28 and even then, there could be more that were missing for all we know plus combining sources like that would fall under WP:SYN) and it just clutters the article, especially, again, when the ONE source about the advisor retiring makes the claim itself in one sentence. Why add all the extra and make your editing job more difficult? Sources are great, but there is definitely such a thing as "oversourcing" especially in a low imprtance article like a high school. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

After viewing a number of featured articles, I am now okay w/ omitting certain citations from the lead. However I still feel very strongly that one citation is not adequate to support the 28 yr win streak. It 'is extraordinary in that the win-streak lasted 28 years. I get it that you yourself don't think that some Latin convention is very notable-- what you don't realize is that it's the 28-year-streak that is notable here. Again, I challenge you to find any organization that has won something that many years in a row. MisterE2123two (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Strike-through conceded argument. MisterE2123two (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

One other point-- there really isn't much left to expand on in this article. A few extra citations for an extraordinary 28-year-win-streak-claim (latin or otherwise) isn't going to clutter this article, especially since said citations are all grouped together anyway. MisterE2123two (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

<------Oh, there is PLENTY more for this article to be expanded. For one, it lacks a history section. Granted, it doesn't have to be long, but it doesn't have one even though the school is over 100 years old. The athletics section also needs to be turned into prose rather than a bulleted list. The notable athletic teams should also be highlighted just like the notable clubs. Not necessarily in subsections, but more than currently exists. There are other sections that could also be included such as one on the campus and facilities. Their absence still doesn't justify adding an excessive amount of sources that aren't needed. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I lied-- a few more points: "most people have never even heard of Junior Classical League" Some 50,000 members wordwide any given year: whether most people know about it or not, it exists. I would argue many people do know about it. Regardless, Wikipedia should be used to inform. There wouldn't be very many Wikipedia articles if we limited their creation to those subjects "most people" know about. Do "most people" know about Olga Mural Field at Schoonover Stadium, Alaina_Reed_Hall, Julianne Baird or Lorenzo Snow? (the user who created this section has made contributions to each of these pages, and as that user openly describes himself as a Kent native, I wonder how well those subjects conform to his own implication that "most people" must know something for it to be relevant on Wikipedia) MisterE2123two (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

<------These are addressed on my talk page and are really irrelevant to this article. I didn't create any of the listed articles, I have merely contributed to them, most on a very limited basis. All have demonstrated their own levels of notability. I have never stated that "most people" need to know about something for it to be on Wikipedia. I said, "most people" don't even know about Junior Classical League so they won't find the 28 titles all that significant or controversial and thus it does not need more than one source in this article. Multiple sources are required for highly controversial and challengeable material. Please stop taking it personally. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is so much more to expand on in the article, what are you waiting for? Instead of making said changes, you choose to diminish (or completely remove) the contributions of others. A 28-year win streak is unique. If it isn't, then prove me wrong by providing examples of other win-streaks lasting as long or longer (it doesn't have to be of some HS club). Without adequate sources, the claim of 28-consecutive-wins might seem to "many people" incredible-- some may even challenge such a claim. Do you believe everything you read? The Beacon Journal citation you left contained neither a quote nor a weblink. Its title doesn't help much either, reading simply "Celebrations." And the Stow Sentry citation reads like a press release, something the school itself wrote-- I seriously doubt it was the work of a third party.

The article being incomplete is not an excuse to include or retain unneeded excess. It's not "keep everything until the article has all the required parts and then start trimming." No, it's follow the guidelines all the time. Winning one major competition per year 28 years in a row is unique, but is no different than a sports team winning, say 71 consecutive games like UConn women's basketball, which can be cited with just ONE article from any major sports website, not 71 game summaries. --JonRidinger (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Look, it's not as if I can't see what you're trying to say here: one (or maybe two) reliable sources for one fact. For example, the Stow Boys Soccer team won the state championship in 2006-- one reliable source (from OHSAA) is enough in that case. If in the future more details are added about, say, that team's championship season, fine, more citations for those added details. For now though, one citation from a reliable source is enough. I have no problem with that. But in the case of the Latin Club, we are not talking about just one state title. Or two. Or three... Twenty-eight wins, and they were consecutive. I don't spend all of my time on Wikipedia, but if I did, and I were to come across an article for a HS club (or athletic team) in Wisconsin or California or wherever else, and a claim was made of 28-consecutive state titles, I would DEMAND more than one reliable source. 28 consecutive wins is an extraordinary (or unusual or unique or rare or incredible or uncommon-- take your pick) claim, and as such, it demands extraordinary (or unusual or uncommon) sourcing. I don't think that the citations should go on forever in this case, but the one's you removed weren't exactly hurting the article. MisterE2123two (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Why would you demand more than one reliable source? If it's reliable, what's the issue? Reliable = published by a credible source that is neutral. If you have an issue with the reliability of the sources here, remove them. For some things, yes, more than one reliable source is needed, but that is generally reserved for highly controversial and potentially contentious statements, which this certainly isn't. If the Beacon Journal sources don't seem reliable to you, get rid of them. All you need is ONE reliable source that states the ONE fact that the school won 28 consecutive titles. It's not 28 different facts. It's ONE fact. Please read WP:SYN about combining sources. It's generally not a good idea. You don't need the huge long list that currently exists as no one will challenge it knowing A) the source is reliable and B) it's not that controversial, regardless of your opinion of JCL. Unless you can prove that the Stow Sentry sources aren't reliable, I see no reason why they shouldn't be considered such and thus are the only one(s) needed. Newspapers do actually review things they publish. Doesn't mean I believe everything I read is true, but I see nothing that leads me to believe this is simply a matter of boosterism or exaggeration. Also, the statement "Stow has not won since" isn't needed. It can easily be implied it hasn't won since by stating the years it won 28 in a row. Otherwise, EVERY year you will have to add another citation when Stow doesn't win. Hardly a productive use of time or article space. --JonRidinger (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the sources for the Latin club's 28-year streak. Most of them do not back up the claim. A reference saying that the won 21 years in a row does not prove that they won 28. Listing so many references makes it hard to find the one that actually backs up the point. No one thinks anyone is lying about the 28 year streak so one good reference is plenty. --Beirne (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have cleared out all of the sources but two. I left the Sentry source because it is available online and the Beacon Journal source because it was closer the the event and I assume makes the claim. I also removed the references for the school not having won since 2006. In order to keep the reference current someone will need to post the results here every year, which is not worth the effort. It is an easy claim to refute if false and not worth the effort to maintain the references. --Beirne (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Science Olympiad

I have removed this section twice for the following reasons: first, there are no sources, so making claims that the team has a "long history" needs a third-party source. Second, the subheadings for the various clubs and teams should highlight significant accomplishments of each one, so if this Science Olympiad has some past notable achievements (like winning a state competition or placing highly nationally for instance) those should be included and of course properly sourced (like they have been for clubs such as speech and debate). Otherwise, the club is already mentioned in the article. Third, this is an encylcopedic article not a school website, so a club "getting back on its feet" is neither encyclopedic nor notable. Wikipedia articles aren't about giving every aspect of a school equal treatment (different than a school website); they're about giving the main subject (in this case SMFHS) a general treatment and highlighting the most notable aspects of that subject (notable accomplishments of the school and of the different clubs and teams). Last, avoid using external links within the article itself. See WP:EL --JonRidinger (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Always good to see reliable sources and good info added to an article. As we've discussed before, however, there is such a thing as "over sourcing". Most facts need just one reliable source. Only highly controversial and challengeable statements need multiple sources. In other words, we don't need the main source and then the bulleted list after it with additional sources unless those sources provide some additional insight. Even then, it's fairly standard to just have two citation makers instead of one with several links. Also, try to put the source in the body of the article at the end of the sentence it is supporting as opposed to the reference list. This makes it easier to find and edit with the sections. When the sources are at the end, the article must be edited as a whole. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

WearyWorld (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Class of 2010: 101st graduating class

Unfortunately, multiple sources are necessary to verify the claim that the graduating class of 2010 was in fact the 101st graduating class. None of the Stow Sentry articles ("Congratulations to the class of ______ !") specify the number of the graduating class (99th, 100th, 101st, etc.) -- they only verify that there was in fact a graduating class for that year. Hopefully the district/HS will order a new edition of the Alumni Directory-- until then, 2005 is the most recent. Believe me when I say that I've tried every possible way to source the 101st class claim. I've contacted the HS directly, the district offices on Allen Rd., gone through Stow Sentry microfilm at SMF Public, talked to both the Local History Librian at SMF Public and even a member of the historical society. If you can find an adequate substitue, then by all means, submit it. Until then, I'm restoring the other sources. WearyWorld (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The additional sources do NOT back up the claim either, unless you have a source for EVERY class. Now, I do remember something being said about the class of 2009 being the 100th class on the SMFHS website. In reality, though, it's not that critical of information. The first class graduated in 1909. Let that stand. We don't need to update the total every year. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Another place you could look is the graduation program for this past year. I know my own h.s. graduation and many of the others I've been too had the number of graduating class it was right on the cover of the program. But again, in the end, it's not that important. Since the first year is referenced, that's really the most important information. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The Alumni Directory lists EVERY SINGLE GRADUATING CLASS FOR SMFHS THROUGH THE CLASS OF 2005! GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT! WearyWorld (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, the Alumni Directory notes that there was no graduating class in 1915! Citing the first year is NOT sufficient-- that would make 2010 the 102nd (which it is not), rather than the 101st (which it is!). WearyWorld (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Point is taken on updating the number every year-- not necessary. However, 2009 was the 100th class, which is significant enough for inclusion. Updating content. WearyWorld (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Also-- yes, there was info on the old SMFHS website about the 100th class, but that site has been replaced with the new site and is no longer viewable. The 100th class update to the site is also too recent an update to view using the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. WearyWorld (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as you seem to be responding here, could I ask that you please stick to one account from now on. You are liable to be blocked for ongoing sockpuppetry, but if you stick your hand up now and say that you'll stop that would be a good start. I do think you might have something worthwhile to add but your use of sockpuppet and throwaway accounts is disruptive. Quantpole (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Stow High School

I've marked the reference for the high school often being called "Stow High School" as failing verification. The story is about the death of a 62-year old. When he went there 40-some years ago it was called Stow High School, but that does not say anything about the school today. --Beirne (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Does that even need a source? Seems like a pretty cut-and-dry thing that a school with a name as long as "Stow-Munroe Falls High School" would often be shortened to "Stow High School" (and it certainly was once called Stow High School). But maybe that's the "local" in me speaking... --JonRidinger (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There are at least three other sources using the name "Stow High School", including those for: Hailey Bennett (who attended in the 2000s); Dave Jamerson (who graduated in the mid-80s); and Larry Csonka (who actually graduated before Purkhiser). I really don't care if there's one source listed, multiple, or none-- let's just agree on something and be done with it. Clearly SMFHS has been and still is frequently referred to as "Stow High School." Try a newspaper search using Google or a Northeast Ohio library, and you'll see what I mean. SoShinesAGoodDeed (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources for people who actually went to Stow High School do not make the case that it is called Stow High School today. --Beirne (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the sources for the alumni (which include some quotes), particularly the Haley Bennett one, make it seem to me that it is often called "Stow High School" not to mention what I already said about it being a shortened name. I think I'd be a bit more concerned for a source if the additional name was something vastly different. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The lead states "referred to as," not that "Stow High School" is an official alternate name (though it was the name until the new school was built in the late 80s). The fact that multiple newspaper articles spread across multiple decades refer to Stow High School students as having attended/graduated "Stow High School" verifies the statement "referred to as". It doesn't get much simpler than that. SoShinesAGoodDeed (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

ITS, Graner

A freshman at Stow High School may join Drama Club on day one. The same freshman could not, however, join the International Thespian Society (ITS) -- membership is limited to theater participants who have earned a certain number of "points." Points are earned by participation in theater or theater-related activities: acting, writing, set design/construction, filming, film/video editing, etc. Hence, "theater participants" (participation outside of school theater can also translate to "points").

Jim Graner graduated in 1937, not 1938 (athletic hall of fame is in error), so the 2005 Alum Directory citation is needed. Athletic HoF citation is needed to verify that "James R. Graner" from Alumni Directory is, in fact, the same Jim Graner-sportscaster. SoShinesAGoodDeed (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Because the alumni directory is cited elsewhere and a note is included, that is sufficient for the citation. I have no reason to believe it was added incorrectly or that the note isn't sourced. The most important fact in the citation is that he went to Stow. The same goes for all the other ones. All you need is one source that states the person went to Stow High or Stow-Munroe Falls High. The one for Jamerson I removed from the Ohio University website, for instance, simply stated he was "from Stow" which doesn't necessarily mean he went to Stow High School. The other source was specific. Also, in the alumni list, only a few details about why the person is notable are needed and usually they are pretty general. If someone wants to learn more they can go to the article on that person. The main subject is still the high school, not the famous alumni. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. SoShinesAGoodDeed (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Drama Club/ITS, what you say could be true, but is not supported by the source, which says "All students are encouraged to join this group whose members are responsible for all phases of play production including acting, directing, set decorations, and makeup." --Beirne (talk) 04:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm completely in favor of an additional source. The ITS page clearly states what I said above-- I just haven't had a chance to add it yet. Wait a few minutes.

Apologies, forgot to sign. And when I said "ITS page", I meant the ITS website, not its wikipedia article (just to clarify). SoShinesAGoodDeed (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

For that, if the ITS site has a link, I'd just add to the drama link "see also: International Thespian Society" instead of a bulleted second source or even a separate citation since it's in the end a minor fact. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Having been a member of ITS, it is by induction, however, Beirne is saying that statement would need a source since the source does not support that. Sounds like the source itself is pretty vague about the role of ITS vs. drama club. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The "drama link" (I'm assuming you mean citation) is the Program of Studies. A sep. citation for ITS site seems the only appropriate way. SoShinesAGoodDeed (talk) 05:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, OK. Well, that makes sense then. Another option that I prefer when a book is cited multiple times like that is to reference specific pages. I did this on the Kent, Ohio article for some of the history books I used if you want to see an example. It makes it easier to verify and to find the information if someone is looking for it. Basically you do a full citation for the book the first time and then every successive time you have <ref name=studies2>Author, p. 15</ref>. Of course where multiple pages are cited you'd use "pp." instead of "p." --JonRidinger (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Issues

There are several issues that over time will need to be dealt with. First, have a look at WP:MOS#Links and WP:LINK. There are a lot of words linked here that really don't need to be, particularly in the references section. Second are the references themselves. I'm hoping there is a way to consolidate more of the sources, particularly for the Latin Club. Right now, it's very hard to tell what source goes to what fact, plus it was very difficult to edit the sources because they are not in any kind of order in the references section (they appear to be in the order they were added as opposed to the order they appear in the article). I know the purpose behind them, but I'm not sure A) we need to include every year and B) that we need to cite every year. Is there anything that just gives a raw number of how many titles, kind of like the source for the 28 consecutive? --JonRidinger (talk) 04:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The references are listed alphabetically by "ref name" -- that seems relatively straightforward to me. And YES, we need to include every Certamen citation. There aren't any sources listing the total number won. SoShinesAGoodDeed (talk) 05:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll begin removing wikilinks in the reference section. SoShinesAGoodDeed (talk) 05:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Again on Certamen -- small text was used due to number, and quotes were omitted. The Stow Sentry article for each year confirms the Certamen title won that year. SoShinesAGoodDeed (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Certamen title sources are listed chronologically, as are the Certamen title years in the body. It relatively straightforward. SoShinesAGoodDeed (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember, YOU placed them in the article; the only way for anyone to see that is to go back and forth for each one to see if each year is there. Never assume something like that is "straight forward" especially when editing the section gets you the ref name only.

(edit conflict)Unfortunately, for someone who didn't put the reference section together, it's not what I looked for right away and it wasn't totally clear, especially for ref names that use a person's name, which is usually alphabetized by last name. That might be something to add in a blocked out note like <!--- Sources ordered alphabetically by ref name ---> That's why I prefer the traditional way of putting the sources in the body of the article. It's much easier to edit sections that way and organize sources. In any case, for the Certamen citations, perhaps you could break up the citations so that the clusters of years coincide with the groups of years they are referencing. As it stands now the same citation is used after all three sets of parenthesis so there is no way to know what is being referenced. It would at least make it easier to verify. Without doing that, you would only need one citation marker at the end of the sentence, not after each set of parenthesis. I would also encourage the group and/or the school to centralize the information on their website. Then we could use just one source AND that source could be checked by others!  :) --JonRidinger (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

So what do you want me to do about the refs? I really don't think it's practical to move them back to the body, but I guess I could rename some. I was also thinking of line-spaces between citations for clarity. To reiterate, the citations are simply alphabetized.

Oh, and good luck getting the district/school to post anything. Stow is lucky to have Latin at all since McCaffrey's retirement. Kent has an excellent website. Stow has always been lacking online. SoShinesAGoodDeed (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I added a "hidden note" in the references section, similar to what is commonly found in lists of notable people. As for the citations, for now they seem OK. As long as the note is there for alphabetizing it should work. The format you chose I think is more for articles that do require multiple citations after highly controversial statements, so you'll have this huge section of citations in the text and it's harder to sort out the article text from the citation text. Most of the citations in high school articles are single or double citations, so it doesn't make it too hard to edit around. I would say avoid clustering them as much as possible; instead break them up into separate citations (for the Certamen obviously clustering them is all we can do for now since all of them are offline sources). For clustered sources that have websites, I would cite the general website or after the first citation, do a "See also" with the various links instead of full citations. I may get some feedback from other editors on the Schools project too. And just to let you know, the Kent City Schools website definitely has its flaws...some things are online, and some just aren't. All depends on who is in charge of a group and how much that person values keeping their pages up to date (and I personally think the site overall is kind of bland). --JonRidinger (talk) 05:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Who exactly is considered notable?

Regarding the notable alumni section, what is the definition of notable? I fail to see a reason why Richard Cooey, who either was or should have been in the graduation class of 1985, should be considered notable. If taking another persons life is notable, I can list a graduate who killed someone in a drunk driving accident. If being jailed is notable, I can list a graduate who has double digit drunk driving convictions. Personally, I'd like to see Cooey removed from this page.

My apologies if this isn't supposed to be a 'new section'; I don't know the rules for discussion pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clear like ice (talk • contribs) 13:31, February 17, 2011

On Wikipedia the basic guideline to have an article on a topic is Wikipedia:Notability, and for articles on people the gudieline is Wikipedia:Notability (people). Most editors will not add someone to a list of notable people (alumni or staff in a school article, or residents for an article on a place) unless that person already has an article on Wikipedia. This does not apply to mentions of people within an article, provided they are mentioned by multiple reliable independent sources (see WP:V and WP:RS). So an article on a school might mention the principal's name, but not list her as a notable person associated with the school unless she had her own article. Cooey meets the notability guideline, my guess is that all of the other people you mentioned do not. A neutral point of view means including all notable people, even if they are infamous instead of famous for their good deeds. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch explained it pretty well. Basically, the notable alumni list and any type of notable people list on Wikipedia is to connect articles that have certain commonalities or associations. Notable doesn't have to mean successful (and vice versa) though in many cases it does. Someone being notable isn't always a positive thing either. For a nearby example, see Revere High School, which lists Jeffrey Dahmer. Cooey is listed because he has notability, not because he's a successful SMFHS graduate. Cooey is also listed at Stow, Ohio#Notable people since he grew up in Stow. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Warts and all. Levdr1 (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)