Talk:Oyster River High School

Edit request from Sfiermon, 28 July 2011

I believe that this page is very incomplete. I wish to add more details, recent events, and content. Most notably, school board and committee info as well as recent appointments of top administrators.

Sfiermon (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• You will note the edit request template asks that you list specific changes. When you do that we will be able to review the edits. Thanks Tiderolls 18:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Repeated addition of local news

This content describes a local set of circumstances that appear to have no bearing on the description of the subject school. How is the hiring/almost hiring/firing/kind-of-dismissing a principal germaine to the article? Tiderolls 05:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This issue is of great concern to all involved with the Oyster River Cooperative School District, and thusly the Oyster River High School. Since this deals with the principal position, which is as-yet unresolved, as well as bigger issues with the district, it is a common point of question when discussing the district and school. This could be moved to a page about the district as a whole, but it has yet to be created. 24.61.198.153 (talk) 07:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No. It is a local issue. Local news, and as such, not encyclopedic. It would serve you well to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Notability and WP:BRD before editing further. Tiderolls 07:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This is far beyond an issue of local scope. Press from this issue was given state-wide, region-wide, nationally, and internationally. If you would like to offer suggestions to format this information in a way that is more amenable to you, I would greatly appreciate it. In the mean time, this information gives greater context to a currently very brief article about a local school. It shows the current climate of the school, and the surrounding area. If someone were researching this school, especially for the purposes of determining it's viability as a good place to live, or assess the status of someone associated with it, this information is very relevant. By your measure, the sports standings and history stated in the section above (with no references, I might add) are equally as locally-focused and therefore should be removed as well. Also, with regard to the first article you referenced, while I do appreciate the section about news and scope, we are not talking about an article as a whole, but about a section. I do think this has a valid scope and it is not just a news blurb. As I said, if you have suggestions for a better way to present this information, I would greatly appreciate your guidance on the matter. Thanks for your diligence, I understand where you're coming from, and imagine it's not an easy task. 24.61.198.153 (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive response. Please understand that I am not saying that the situation is not important. A couple of points. It would be beneficial (but not required) for you to create an account here so that your contributions could be preserved under one account rather than, what could be, many changing IP addresses. More to the point; the sports standings and history of the school pertains to the school directly (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS regarding your "if X shouldn't be included, then Z must go"). I don't doubt that this situation is of great importance to the school and the surrounding area. However, the article is about the school. The outcome of any deliberation by the local authorities might be apropos to the article, but I can't see where the decision making process itself is relevant. Did you read the guideline and essay I referenced? If there are wide-sweeping issues that are involved here then we do need to discuss that aspect. Regards Tiderolls 08:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, would a better approach be to keep the info on this page to a few brief outcome points, and then make a page for the District and/or School Board as a whole for the process-related things? Of course, those additional pages would have to include other substantive information, and not just an outlet for these few points. I have been wanting to create those pages anyway, this may be a good opportunity. Thoughts? I did read the articles you referenced, the first on Notability seems to have the main point of weather any given topic should have it's own article, not if it should be included at all. I do see the section on Common Circumstances -> Events, but this still seems to reference an article as a whole, not a section, and I believe I have already made my argument for Significant Coverage as well as research value justification. The 2nd article about BRD I read and am attempting to adhere to. How am I doing so far? I have thought about making an account, and I will if I end up creating other related pages for the rest of the district. In the mean time, I do have a reasonably stable IP address. I would appreciate your input on the questions I have above. Thanks. 24.61.198.153 (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Pruning the content would be a place to start. YouTube is generally not considered a reliable source, so any content based that link is not viable. As for the new article approach; that's not a bad idea but I still think the notability issue would arise. It may be productive to seek the opinion of other editors by leaving a notice of this discussion at the schools Wikiproject (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools) or the Notability noticeboard (Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard), or even at both places. If you do not want to post the messages, let me know and I will do it. Regards Tiderolls 15:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I will proceed with trimming the sections on this page, removing any non-ORHS topics and putting them on more district-level pages. While I am at this, I will rewrite the sections to hopefully achieve a more factual and historical approach, and make it sound less like "Local News". I will also attempt to find better sources for the questionable references, such as the YouTube one. I think we should hold off on having posting to the Project Schools/Notability noticeboard until after I have made the changes I've outlined above. At that point, we can consider those other avenues, but at this point I think we should try the revisions first. Thanks. 24.61.198.153 (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think our take on the notability issue is sufficiently incongruous that it will require outside opinion. Go ahead with your changes, though; I could be surprised, its happened before. Thanks for your patience in this matter. Tiderolls 16:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the two sections in question, and added a section on the administration of the school. While it does give some background to the current principal situation, I do not believe it is anywhere close to what was there previously. I would be interested to hear your opinion on the new section, and if there is anything else you would suggest to further improve the section. Thanks. 24.61.198.153 (talk) 16:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll admit I'm surprised. That's roughly what I had in mind. Understand that my interpretation is only one opinion; other editors may have a different (possibly more correct) take on the notability guideline. I'm glad I didn't have to re-write the section...I hate writing. Thanks for your effort. Tiderolls 16:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I'm glad we were able to resolve this issue in a manner that was agreeable to both of us. 24.61.198.153 (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

File nominated for deletion on commons

file:c:File:ORHS Logo.png Reason:No permission indicated subpage: 

Message automatically deposited by a robot on 09:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harideepan (talk • contribs)