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.

Hey Jon, would you mind checking out the Kent State University#Greek life section... specifically the table? It is a fuster cluck and you have more knowledge about Kent State than I do... Thanks, Corky 22:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Will do. I'd prefer to just eliminate the entire thing. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 00:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi JonRidinger, in my edit to Northwest High School I put the extra text into 'Northwest High School, House Springs, Missouri' and 'Northwest High School (Clarksville, Tennessee)' in order to include a blue link for each. I was following the MOS for disambiguation pages, specifically here and here. If I've done this incorrectly, could you please let me know how - I'm still trying to figure out all this disambiguation stuff. Thanks Leschnei ( talk) 18:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@ Leschnei:, for the two high schools you mentioned that basically use "borrowed notability", both could, and likely should, have their own articles. It's simply a matter of someone not writing one yet as opposed to it being a case where the topic isn't notable. The connection of Clarksville Northwestern to the Fox football team is tenuous since the team plays on the campus of (in the stadium) as opposed to the school itself. If the Clarksville Fox article was expanded, it should have a section on facilities or home field, where it would talk about the stadium itself (though it doesn't appear the team exists anymore). The same is true for House Springs Northwest, which could easily have an article on its own. At the very least, both should be redlinks for now, until someone creates articles on them. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 21:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

That's very clear - thanks. And I saw your further edits to the page; a definite improvement. Leschnei ( talk) 22:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes my name is Nate Boyd and I am the athletic director of east Liverpool Jr/ Sr high school and would like to know why you changed my admendment to our notable alumni?? Michael a Cunningham graduated from here in 1998 and signed a contract with the new York Yankees , he played for Columbus Clippers for 2 years before injury . So I ask please do not change it again I'm getting very tired of changing it back. This is truth and fact and needs to stay the way it is thank you. Bishop1222 ( talk) 15:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@ Bishop1222: Hi Nate. Notable alumni lists on articles are for linking to articles on Wikipedia about people who are connected to a given school; they aren't simply lists for accomplished alumni. If the person on the list does not have an article on Wikipedia, they should not be mentioned. Creation of articles on Wikipedia is based on a person's notability, not on success or a specific accomplishment. Unfortunately, Michael Cunningham doesn't seem to have appeared in a Major League game, so seems to fail the requirements of WP:BASE/N, which states baseball players are notable if they have played in "Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, KBO League, or have participated in a major international competition (such as the World Baseball Classic, Baseball World Cup or Olympics) as a member of a national team." All minor league players sign contracts with Major League teams, but that in itself doesn't make them notable. There could be other ways he is notable, but the place to discuss that is in trying to create an article about him. No one is disputing that he went to ELHS or played professional baseball, but he doesn't appear to meet the standards of notability, so shouldn't be on the list unless an article is created that satisfies Wikipedia's notability standard. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 02:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Then I guess we will be at it constantly you changing it me changing it back as a school system we want his name on there as he is now our high school baseball coach.i understand what your saying but he deserves to be on the page under his uncle Lou holtz. So I ask you to please leave our high school page alone it looks and says what we here at the school system want to represent Bishop1222 ( talk) 14:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@ Bishop1222:, please be aware that this article operates under Wikipedia policies; it is not the property of your school or district. It is a Wikipedia article about your school, but you have no more authority on its content than I do as a fellow editor. That his uncle is Lou Holtz is a nice fact; that in itself does not make him notable under Wikipedia standards, which is what I and other editors operate under. Whether someone "deserves" to be mentioned is a matter of opinion. Please read the Wikipedia policy under WP:N about notability and the guidelines for school articles at WP:WPSCH/AG, especially the section on alumni at WP:ALUMNI ("alumni to be included must meet Wikipedia notability criteria"). Unfortunately, the recent edit you added appears to be a different Michael Cunningham than the one from your school, unless your current baseball coach is also a social psychologist at the University of Louisville. Please also read Wikipedia's policies regarding the "ownership" of articles at WP:OWN ("All Wikipedia content—articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages—is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or how high-standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page. Also, a person or an organization that is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say."). I'm happy to help improve the ELHS/JHS article, but you need to be aware of the policies and guidelines the article has to function under for that effort to be most successful. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 14:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@ Bishop1222:, please also read Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest at WP:COI, paying close attention to the section at WP:COIEDIT. You not only being, but editing as AD places you in a direct conflict of interest in regards to the article. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 14:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@ Bishop1222:, I have moved the discussion to Talk:East Liverpool Junior/Senior High School#Notable alumni. If you would like to discuss it further, please respond there. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 14:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Dollars to doughnuts, this isn't who he claims to be. I've seen this a few times before. My response at the article talk will end it. Even if the administrators don't act. John from Idegon ( talk) 15:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

____

You might want to think about adding Andy Harmon to Kent State's notable alumni page. Played in NFL for Eagles for a few years. Was pretty good.

Hey Jon, I'm sorry for being stubborn lately. I just read the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines and learned that a lot of the work I have contributed to Wikipedia doesn't fall under the guidelines, notably for league titles and other bits of information, regardless if they're referenced. I was unaware of this, so I will not be fighting to keep those charts on any of the pages I've added them to. Looking at other pages, I can appreciate the work you've put in to make sure the articles follow Wikipedia's standards, and while it seemed to me like you were singling out the Rossford page, it's evident that is not the case. Take care and keep up the good work. Frank12 ( talk) 13:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@ Frank12: No worries. The Rossford High page is simply on my watchlist, so I saw it and edited (and yes, I've done simialr to many other high school articles :) ). The additions you've put in look great as it gives the article some substance beyond athletics (which is a huge problem for most US high school articles), plus I learned a little about the history of the school and district, which is always interesting to me. Thanks for all your own efforts! -- JonRidinger ( talk) 15:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I reverted your edit to the lead of this article, for the time being. Most of the information that you'd put in was duplicated elsewhere in what is, right now, a fairly short article. I am going to put the in-use tag on the article and expand it over the next hour or so this morning while I have some time to work on it. Part of that work will be to reincorporate some of the information I deleted into the lead. Strikerforce ^Talk 14:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@ Strikerforce: Be sure to read WP:LEAD as one-sentence leads aren't in line with what we're after here. The lead should have information that is duplicated elsewhere in the article since it is a summary of the entire article. There actually shouldn't be any unique info in the lead that isn't mentioned elsewhere; it's just in more detail in the body of the article. It is also normal to have the former names of a facility bold once and in or near the lead since those are all redirects to the article. It is especially important to have those former names visible in or near the lead when a facility has just had a recent name change like this soon will have. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 14:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

While the article is short and the lead definitely needs more work, a one-sentence lead is less desirable that what is currently there, which is actually pared down from what it was previously. The current lead can certainly be expanded and modified; it currently gives some of the basic highlights of the article (in particular its former names without the details of the naming rights deals). The main tenant should also be something included in the lead since that is most likely why the facility is widely known. Remember, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." (emphasis added) If you go to any Good or Featured articles, you will find they not only have multiple-paragraph leads, but they also have info that can be found in greater detail later in the article. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 15:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

True. My desire for the shorter lead comes from working in the media, where our goal is to hit a one or two-sentence hook and then present the rest. Longer lead paragraphs just seem excessively "clunky" to me. That being said, do you want to work on cleaning up the "Events" section? I think that, between the two of us, we can probably bring the article very quickly to a point where it may be ready to be assessed for elevation about "start class". Strikerforce ^Talk 16:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Understandable, though WP:LEAD specifically addresses that: "It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph." Opening paragraph should generally have the location, summarize the main tenant(s), and perhaps previous names, next paragraph should have a brief history summary, and the final paragraph summarize any additional uses and maybe some of the specifics like seating capacity, depending on the arena and depending on the content of the article; again, it's about summarizing the key points of the article, not creating a news article. The article won't move much past start class if it has a one or two-sentence lead...see Century Link Field for an example of a sports facility that is a Featured Article. The larger the article, the larger the lead. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 18:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

As a member of the Cleveland Wikipedia Project, I'm asking for you to please weigh in in an ongoing debate (regarding off topic and/or redundant information as well the use of unencyclopedic/POV language) on both the Beachwood and Glenville articles. Your participation would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Ryecatcher773 ( talk) 22:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, JonRidinger. You have new messages at The Sports Gnome's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Sports Gnome ( talk) 21:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jon, I wanted to ask about the requirement to have a wikipedia page in order to be listed as an alumni. I had never heard of that particular requirement before, I was curious if you had the wiki policy link? I want to be sure I have it in the future if I make the same edit to a page and someone asks me why. Thanks,

Squatch347 ( talk) 21:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Scrolling back up through your page, someone had linked this page: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines#Alumni So it looks like i've answered my own question. Under these guidelines, the alumni could be include if they had been cited (and for at least one there needs to be a better defense of notability) with an external source. Is that your read too? Squatch347 ( talk) 21:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

( talk page stalker) Hi, Squatch347. You don't exactly have to have an article, but the individual must unambiguously qualify to have an article (they don't, as college athletes have no presumption of notability), and if you do not have an article to link to, reliable secondary sources must be provided to show both that the individual is unambiguously notable and to verify their connection to the school. Pretty much, unless both those requirements can be met with one or two sources (examples might be, a state level or higher elected official, a big league pro athlete, a Congressional Medal of Honor awardee), there notability would remain debatable and an article would be required. Applicable PAG are WP:NLIST and WP:ALUMNI. Thanks for your interest in school articles. May I suggest you consider joining WP:WPSCH? John from Idegon ( talk) 22:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@ Squatch347: John explained it well. In the end, the best place to establish or attempt to establish notability is an article about that person, rather than doing so in a school alumni list. Lack of an article is an almost sure sign they don't meet WP:N, at least right now, which is why I, and most editors, typically remove names that lack articles (though not always!). If they have notability to be included, there should be some kind of article about them since the alumni list can only mention the absolute minimum of details about the person (i.e. very general mention of why they're notable like "professional baseball player in Major League Baseball", not a mini-biography like would be in a hall of fame entry). Many well-meaning editors think the Notable alumni list is for any accomplished alumni (much like a school website or hall of fame), when the reality is the list is simply to connect related articles. That means anyone notable will be listed in that section, whether it's for positive or negative reasons (like Jeffrey Dahmer being listed for Revere High School (Ohio)...the school likely won't list him as being an accomplished alumni, but he's most certainly notable and went to school there). -- JonRidinger ( talk) 13:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate the explanation you both offered, and the links to additional wiki policy so I can defend it myself going forward. Thanks for your time! Squatch347 ( talk) 14:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

John, can you please explain what the difference is between the two items below regarding individual track and field state champions...

1) Boys Track and Field - Pole Vault. Matt Rowland 2011, 2012 & 2013.

2) 2011 - Brant Reardon - High Jump - 7'0" - Division III Champion

The first one is from the Bellevue High School page which you have edited several times and deemed it appropriate. The second one is from the Saint Joseph Central Catholic page and you deem it inappropriate. I really don't see a difference.

Also, In the message you sent to me today, you say "Considering the article lacks any info about other parts of the school like curriculum, arts, and facilities, I'd say that's a great place to start." I find that interesting because you have previously deleted items like this: "$1,652,000 Scholarship Dollars were awarded to 2016 Graduates.[1]" which was supporting data referencing the quality of education the school provides. I'm not sure what was inappropriate about that information either.

I thought the whole point of Wikipedia is that it is a collaborative effort. One person can add information on one subject like athletics while someone else may be more informed on curriculum, arts, etc. That doesn't mean information should be deleted in one section because another section is lacking. All Wikipedia pages are a work in progress and I would hope the goal is to have the most detailed and accurate information available in one place, not censoring verifiable information because someone feels it's unimportant or unnecessary. Thank you for your time.

Gridirn58 ( talk) 22:07, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

They should both be removed. Be sure to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That other pages have inappropriate info, even pages I may have edited in the past, doesn't mean it's OK for another article to have it. You saying I have "deemed it appropriate" makes some significant assumptions on your part, assumptions that are completely incorrect. I don't always notice EVERYTHING that needs fixed. Looking at the edit history, when I made the edits, I was mostly doing things on the infobox and other format changes and simply missed that an individual was listed, mostly because of how it's listed. And, oh by the way, I removed it.

Regarding the scholarship info, while interesting, articles also should avoid WP:RECENT events. That a school got a certain amount of scholarship offers is great for a school website and newsletter, but it's really not all that unusual for a school that size or in that demographic. Never mind it has no context. Is that a lot more than in years past? Is it significantly more than surrounding schools? Why is that significant in the history of the school? Why is it still significant in 2018?

Yes, pages are works in progress, but that doesn't excuse adding information for the sake of adding information. If the info is going to be removed because it violates article guidelines and basic policies, is irrelevant what state the article is in whether it should remain. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 23:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for helping improve FedExField! One thing I noticed is the use of currently. It's not a good idea IMO since "currently" goes out of date fast, and the reader won't know when the "currently" is. That's why using "As of.... such and such a date" is good, as the readers know when the data goes stale and needs to be replaced.

Thanks WhisperToMe ( talk) 13:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@ WhisperToMe:, thanks! I actually didn't put the word "currently" into that section. While I did try to improve it, I didn't do a complete job on every aspect, so that sentence remained from the previous version. The capacity is below 82,000 anyway, but yes, I typically will use the "as of" or "since" instead of "currently". -- JonRidinger ( talk) 15:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The Fonz is indeffd for NOTHERE. That should take care of it. I was preparing to file an SPI to make sure we're done with the nonsense, but I cannot locate the edits from the guy that was impersonating you. Were they oversighted? I got more factual information on the article, another editor chimed in with a real notable; so all that's left is reverifying the OHSAA source and an athletic section. Always glad to help! Oh, BTW.....I hate September!!!! This is the second highly trollish POV pushing obvious kid I've had to get indeffd this week! John from Idegon ( talk) 16:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@ John from Idegon: Thanks! I haven't been able to do much of anything the last few days (as far as even logging into Wikipedia), so very much appreciate all of your efforts. I was ready to go to ANI just because I felt like I was far too patient (again, the teacher in me) and he clearly wasn't interested in anything remotely close to collaboration, plus I suspected some sock-puppetry. And yes, I totally understand what you mean about September. Holy moly. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 18:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

CU confirmed he was everybody in the TP discussion; he also socked to evade his block and leave a message on my TP. Wish I could be a high school boy again so I could know everything. John from Idegon ( talk) 19:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Fabulous. Was he also the sock for User:JonRidingerJr? I suspected he was, but never requested CheckUser on it since it was already blocked for other reasons. -- JonRidinger ( talk) 21:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear Jon,

Recently you removed a section concerning the Center for Entrepreneurship from the list of Ohio University Research Centers. I thanked your post, however this is still a pertinent issue. How would you recommend updating the wiki. Here are some sources:

https://calendar.ohio.edu/event/center-for-entrepreneurship-kickoff/

https://www.ohio.edu/entrepreneurship/create-space

Penedium ( talk) 12:20, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Shenandoah High School requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
• disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 05:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shenandoah High School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shenandoah High School until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Willsome429 ( say hey or see my edits!) 02:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, JonRidinger. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Precious

Three years!

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Four years now! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)