This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Victuallers 12:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
more refs please for a B Victuallers 22:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:New Roosevelt logo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 21:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Just in case someone suspects that the contents of this article are simply copied from the school's website, I just want to make it clear that, in fact, the opposite is true. I wrote them first on Wikipedia and then they were used on the school district's webpage about Roosevelt here. The district's page also includes a link to the school's main website, RHSWeb. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 07:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:RHSSeal.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
As for the shade of red used in the logo vs. the shade of red used in the infobox, the shade used in the infobox is the hex number identified as "red." Roosevelt lists its colors as just "red, white, and black" and the uniforms and other sportswear that have red in them are basic red. Here is an example...note the uniform's shade of red versus the website's shade of red in the border and logo. The uniforms are basic red, while the website uses a deeper shade, most likely to be easier for the viewer. The shade used in the picture Image:New Roosevelt logo.PNG shouldn't be judged as "the" shade used by the school especially since it's a low-resolution image. The logos used on Ohio State's pages illustrate how the low-resolution logo isn't always the correct shade...several of the athletic logos are (or were...several were changed to match the actual hex "scarlet") a deeper shade of red even though it is clearly stated that OSU's colors are "scarlet and gray" and scarlet is a very bright shade of red. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 00:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It's exciting to see new editors finally making some updates to this article. I am sorry if I come across as territorial, but please understand I have been editing Wikipedia for a number of years now and this was the first article I ever started and have done a lot of work for both editing and taking pictures for. That said, I don't consider it mine but I definitely keep a close eye on it. All my edits are done in doing my best to be within established Wikipedia guidelines as well as the guidelines for the Schools Wikiproject. That said, this article is far from where it needs to be as it is currently rated "C" class. Basically we need some things rewritten with more third party neutral sources, plus we need some more pictures of the school, both interior and exterior. One word of advice on pictures: if there is already a picture of something, don't replace it unless you can provide a replacement that is significantly better OR is an update for a view that has been changed (like if an addition or remodeling were done). Simply having the same view at a higher resolution isn't cause to change all the pictures unless the previous picture is of very low resolution (like a picture taken with a cell phone camera). Other reasons to replace a photo would be a much better angle and/or better lighting or better focus. Remember, the purpose of the pictures is to give the reader a better idea about the subject, which in this case is Roosevelt High School. High level of detail in the picture is great, but only so much is really needed unless it adds to the understanding of the subject.
Other changes that need to be made include the body of the article itself and adding more sections and placing them in the recommended order and adding more third-party sources. Guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. Happy editing to all! Please become familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines on all aspects, including writing, sources, and images (see WP:MOS). I am by no means perfect in any of these areas but I know a lot more than when I first started editing! -- JonRidinger ( talk) 03:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The school colors that will be published on this page need to be figured out as an agreement can not be made as well as the web site address for now I think that they should both be removed untill and agreement can be made we do not want to be spreading false information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty5225 ( talk • contribs) 01:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been asked to give an opinion on the recent history of this page. I don't have time to go through everything, so I'll just offer a few comments:
The problem with the colors is that we have a source that states white and red and another that states the colors are black red and white this is clearly a problem that I think need to be addressed and a good citation found. Qwerty5225 ( talk) 06:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The thought occurs to me that we should conduct a little informal straw poll to achieve consensus over this domain issue for the TRHS website. Here's how we'll do it: In the comments below, cast your vote on whether you support or oppose a change in the article to the listed domain; i.e. either you support changing it to http://www.kent.k12.oh.us/rhs/, or you oppose changing it from http://www.kentschools.net/rhs/ . If you could give a brief synopsis of your reasons for supporting or opposing the change, that would be helpful as well. I'll start it out:
Weak oppose. Honestly, I could be convinced either way. But because I see no compelling reason to select one or the other, I also don't see a reason to change. -- JeffBillman ( talk) 01:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. In the bigger scheme of things it doesn't really matter since they both go to the same page, which is why I'm surprised this even has become an issue. However, I prefer using kentschools.net since it is the name the district actively promotes in their published literature (district calendar, newsletter, and Roosevelt newsletter all have ads directing people to "kentschools.net." see here, pages 7 & 9) and use as internal links on the website itself. If kentschools.net was a simple redirect to kent.k12.oh.us (or vice versa), I would want to use the actual address, i.e. what shows up in my browser no matter what I type, but as we have seen, neither is a redirect to the other. On top of that, kentschools.net/rhs is far easier to remember (and a lot less syllables to say!) than kent.k12.oh.us/rhs, which is why the district got the domain name in the first place. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 16:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Stantons page redirects to kent.k12.oh.us so we should be consistant. Qwerty5225 ( talk) 19:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed the Kent City Schools did a total update of all district websites in the last few days. Now, if you type http://www.kent.k12.oh.us in your browser (or just http://kent.k12.oh.us) it is a redirect to http://www.kentschools.net. So even if we had decided to go the other direction, we'd be changing it again now. Very interesting. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 16:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I reverted two edits for the following reasons: 1st, the removal of the mention of the headquarters of the Davey Tree Expert Company. It is not irrelevant to mention that the Roosevelt campus is adjacent to it, particularly since Davey Tree is a notable subject with its own article. In describing the campus, it would make sense to describe its surroundings as well, but especially to mention anything it is near that is notable. It would be one thing if it said "and is located one mile south..." but instead it is adjacent, like literally next door.
2nd, the edit regarding "excessive info, borderline advert." I disagree. Those are simply descibing the facilities. Just because something is detailed doesn't mean it's an advertisement. Saying, for instance, one of the stadiums has a 9-lane all-weather track with seating for 500 is a fact, just like saying " Progressive Field seats over 43,000 and has a Kentucky Bluegrass field." An advert would include words like "best" or "top-notch" or other POV words and phrases designed purely to promote. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 06:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
{outdent} Well, I'm sure that Jon doesn't review every edit, just the edits of articles important to him; as I do. I'm a graduate of Windham High School, so of course Portage County topics are of interest to me. As for Jon, I think he's a graduate of TRHS. Anyway, as far as having the final say, I of course do have the ability to disagree with Jon, but so far it just so happens I've agreed with him. ;-) Wikipedia articles are built on consensus, and the fact that two established editors are in agreement tends to weigh heavily toward that being the consensus. Which leads me to why logging in is a good idea: Establishing yourself as an editor does lend credence to your edits, not only with us local folk but with administrators and other editors from outside the area, who actually are watching this article. What also helps is talking your edits through. Now, as far as the speed of edits, that kinda works both ways: I've noticed (and been irritated by) at least one editor on this article who was quick to ask for citations in this article, only to revert them when they were offered. I think if all parties would calm down a bit, we could all work together to improve this article. We're not in a race! -- JeffBillman ( talk) 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to the anonymous editor who added modern-day dollar equivalents to the article. That was a good idea just to give an even more accurate picture of what it cost. I inserted a template which is set up to update the inflation every year so the "present-day" amount will always be accurate for the present-day and we won't need to update a year number the modern amount is referring to. I removed the Euro conversion first because it doesn't really apply here. Yes, Wikipedia is for more than an American audience, but it can only go so far in showing things in different rates. Once you add the Euro, why not the British Pound since a lot of English readers are British? What about the Canadian dollar? It just opens the door to get out of control. The other issue is simply that the conversion rates between currencies change daily and there is so far no reliable and simple template to insert that would keep it accurate without constant updates. It would basically be accurate only the day it was inserted. On top of that, the conversion from the 1955 and 1957 dollar rates to Euros wouldn't be accurate since it would be using today's exchange rate for 1955 and 1957 dollar amounts when the Euro didn't exist. Also, not a huge issue, but since the same anonymous editor seems to work at Roosevelt and is familiar with the Roberts Auditorium details (possibly a Tech Crew member?), do you have a seat plan that you could use as a source for the number of seats in the article? That would be great to have -- JonRidinger ( talk) 07:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I again removed the vast majority of the details regarding the Latin club and the Ohio Junior Classical League. The details about membership dues and being part of the national level are irrelevant here. All that is relevant to the subject (Roosevelt High School) is that Roosevelt has a local chapter of the OJCL (the OJCL article, linked from here, explains the connection with the National level). Details on membership dues are not encylcopedic and most of what was there was directly relevant to the OJCL article or the club itself. Has the Roosevelt Latin club won anything significant that should be mentioned? If so, then of course we'd have a separate section on it (with sources of course). The reason athletics gets more coverage in this article (and in most) is because it's far easier to find reliable sources. Face it: athletics get far more coverage at a school and in a community than most anything else. Each athletic team mentioned in greater detail has won multiple leauge titles and/or has won at least one state title; i.e. notable accomplishments. Note there is nothing about tryouts, team members, or other minor details; just the main accomplishments and a few history tidbits where available. All have sources. Yes, the general extracurricular section does need expanded (as does the Academics section), but not with minor details about one particular club, especially a club which has no notable accomplishments that would merit inclusion in an encylcopedic article. This is not because of some bias to sports (I was in choir in high school, FYI), but more because of notability and finding reliable sources. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 00:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Victuallers 12:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
more refs please for a B Victuallers 22:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Image:New Roosevelt logo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 21:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Just in case someone suspects that the contents of this article are simply copied from the school's website, I just want to make it clear that, in fact, the opposite is true. I wrote them first on Wikipedia and then they were used on the school district's webpage about Roosevelt here. The district's page also includes a link to the school's main website, RHSWeb. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 07:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:RHSSeal.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 04:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
As for the shade of red used in the logo vs. the shade of red used in the infobox, the shade used in the infobox is the hex number identified as "red." Roosevelt lists its colors as just "red, white, and black" and the uniforms and other sportswear that have red in them are basic red. Here is an example...note the uniform's shade of red versus the website's shade of red in the border and logo. The uniforms are basic red, while the website uses a deeper shade, most likely to be easier for the viewer. The shade used in the picture Image:New Roosevelt logo.PNG shouldn't be judged as "the" shade used by the school especially since it's a low-resolution image. The logos used on Ohio State's pages illustrate how the low-resolution logo isn't always the correct shade...several of the athletic logos are (or were...several were changed to match the actual hex "scarlet") a deeper shade of red even though it is clearly stated that OSU's colors are "scarlet and gray" and scarlet is a very bright shade of red. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 00:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It's exciting to see new editors finally making some updates to this article. I am sorry if I come across as territorial, but please understand I have been editing Wikipedia for a number of years now and this was the first article I ever started and have done a lot of work for both editing and taking pictures for. That said, I don't consider it mine but I definitely keep a close eye on it. All my edits are done in doing my best to be within established Wikipedia guidelines as well as the guidelines for the Schools Wikiproject. That said, this article is far from where it needs to be as it is currently rated "C" class. Basically we need some things rewritten with more third party neutral sources, plus we need some more pictures of the school, both interior and exterior. One word of advice on pictures: if there is already a picture of something, don't replace it unless you can provide a replacement that is significantly better OR is an update for a view that has been changed (like if an addition or remodeling were done). Simply having the same view at a higher resolution isn't cause to change all the pictures unless the previous picture is of very low resolution (like a picture taken with a cell phone camera). Other reasons to replace a photo would be a much better angle and/or better lighting or better focus. Remember, the purpose of the pictures is to give the reader a better idea about the subject, which in this case is Roosevelt High School. High level of detail in the picture is great, but only so much is really needed unless it adds to the understanding of the subject.
Other changes that need to be made include the body of the article itself and adding more sections and placing them in the recommended order and adding more third-party sources. Guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. Happy editing to all! Please become familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines on all aspects, including writing, sources, and images (see WP:MOS). I am by no means perfect in any of these areas but I know a lot more than when I first started editing! -- JonRidinger ( talk) 03:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The school colors that will be published on this page need to be figured out as an agreement can not be made as well as the web site address for now I think that they should both be removed untill and agreement can be made we do not want to be spreading false information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty5225 ( talk • contribs) 01:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been asked to give an opinion on the recent history of this page. I don't have time to go through everything, so I'll just offer a few comments:
The problem with the colors is that we have a source that states white and red and another that states the colors are black red and white this is clearly a problem that I think need to be addressed and a good citation found. Qwerty5225 ( talk) 06:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
The thought occurs to me that we should conduct a little informal straw poll to achieve consensus over this domain issue for the TRHS website. Here's how we'll do it: In the comments below, cast your vote on whether you support or oppose a change in the article to the listed domain; i.e. either you support changing it to http://www.kent.k12.oh.us/rhs/, or you oppose changing it from http://www.kentschools.net/rhs/ . If you could give a brief synopsis of your reasons for supporting or opposing the change, that would be helpful as well. I'll start it out:
Weak oppose. Honestly, I could be convinced either way. But because I see no compelling reason to select one or the other, I also don't see a reason to change. -- JeffBillman ( talk) 01:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose. In the bigger scheme of things it doesn't really matter since they both go to the same page, which is why I'm surprised this even has become an issue. However, I prefer using kentschools.net since it is the name the district actively promotes in their published literature (district calendar, newsletter, and Roosevelt newsletter all have ads directing people to "kentschools.net." see here, pages 7 & 9) and use as internal links on the website itself. If kentschools.net was a simple redirect to kent.k12.oh.us (or vice versa), I would want to use the actual address, i.e. what shows up in my browser no matter what I type, but as we have seen, neither is a redirect to the other. On top of that, kentschools.net/rhs is far easier to remember (and a lot less syllables to say!) than kent.k12.oh.us/rhs, which is why the district got the domain name in the first place. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 16:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Stantons page redirects to kent.k12.oh.us so we should be consistant. Qwerty5225 ( talk) 19:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed the Kent City Schools did a total update of all district websites in the last few days. Now, if you type http://www.kent.k12.oh.us in your browser (or just http://kent.k12.oh.us) it is a redirect to http://www.kentschools.net. So even if we had decided to go the other direction, we'd be changing it again now. Very interesting. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 16:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I reverted two edits for the following reasons: 1st, the removal of the mention of the headquarters of the Davey Tree Expert Company. It is not irrelevant to mention that the Roosevelt campus is adjacent to it, particularly since Davey Tree is a notable subject with its own article. In describing the campus, it would make sense to describe its surroundings as well, but especially to mention anything it is near that is notable. It would be one thing if it said "and is located one mile south..." but instead it is adjacent, like literally next door.
2nd, the edit regarding "excessive info, borderline advert." I disagree. Those are simply descibing the facilities. Just because something is detailed doesn't mean it's an advertisement. Saying, for instance, one of the stadiums has a 9-lane all-weather track with seating for 500 is a fact, just like saying " Progressive Field seats over 43,000 and has a Kentucky Bluegrass field." An advert would include words like "best" or "top-notch" or other POV words and phrases designed purely to promote. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 06:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
{outdent} Well, I'm sure that Jon doesn't review every edit, just the edits of articles important to him; as I do. I'm a graduate of Windham High School, so of course Portage County topics are of interest to me. As for Jon, I think he's a graduate of TRHS. Anyway, as far as having the final say, I of course do have the ability to disagree with Jon, but so far it just so happens I've agreed with him. ;-) Wikipedia articles are built on consensus, and the fact that two established editors are in agreement tends to weigh heavily toward that being the consensus. Which leads me to why logging in is a good idea: Establishing yourself as an editor does lend credence to your edits, not only with us local folk but with administrators and other editors from outside the area, who actually are watching this article. What also helps is talking your edits through. Now, as far as the speed of edits, that kinda works both ways: I've noticed (and been irritated by) at least one editor on this article who was quick to ask for citations in this article, only to revert them when they were offered. I think if all parties would calm down a bit, we could all work together to improve this article. We're not in a race! -- JeffBillman ( talk) 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to the anonymous editor who added modern-day dollar equivalents to the article. That was a good idea just to give an even more accurate picture of what it cost. I inserted a template which is set up to update the inflation every year so the "present-day" amount will always be accurate for the present-day and we won't need to update a year number the modern amount is referring to. I removed the Euro conversion first because it doesn't really apply here. Yes, Wikipedia is for more than an American audience, but it can only go so far in showing things in different rates. Once you add the Euro, why not the British Pound since a lot of English readers are British? What about the Canadian dollar? It just opens the door to get out of control. The other issue is simply that the conversion rates between currencies change daily and there is so far no reliable and simple template to insert that would keep it accurate without constant updates. It would basically be accurate only the day it was inserted. On top of that, the conversion from the 1955 and 1957 dollar rates to Euros wouldn't be accurate since it would be using today's exchange rate for 1955 and 1957 dollar amounts when the Euro didn't exist. Also, not a huge issue, but since the same anonymous editor seems to work at Roosevelt and is familiar with the Roberts Auditorium details (possibly a Tech Crew member?), do you have a seat plan that you could use as a source for the number of seats in the article? That would be great to have -- JonRidinger ( talk) 07:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I again removed the vast majority of the details regarding the Latin club and the Ohio Junior Classical League. The details about membership dues and being part of the national level are irrelevant here. All that is relevant to the subject (Roosevelt High School) is that Roosevelt has a local chapter of the OJCL (the OJCL article, linked from here, explains the connection with the National level). Details on membership dues are not encylcopedic and most of what was there was directly relevant to the OJCL article or the club itself. Has the Roosevelt Latin club won anything significant that should be mentioned? If so, then of course we'd have a separate section on it (with sources of course). The reason athletics gets more coverage in this article (and in most) is because it's far easier to find reliable sources. Face it: athletics get far more coverage at a school and in a community than most anything else. Each athletic team mentioned in greater detail has won multiple leauge titles and/or has won at least one state title; i.e. notable accomplishments. Note there is nothing about tryouts, team members, or other minor details; just the main accomplishments and a few history tidbits where available. All have sources. Yes, the general extracurricular section does need expanded (as does the Academics section), but not with minor details about one particular club, especially a club which has no notable accomplishments that would merit inclusion in an encylcopedic article. This is not because of some bias to sports (I was in choir in high school, FYI), but more because of notability and finding reliable sources. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 00:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)