Talk:Burnaby South Secondary School

Student newspaper article

I've pared way back the material in the student article section. It was far too much material for something that happened two years ago. It also occupied far too much article space given the overall size of the article. Finally, some of the sources were pretty poor, including letters to the editor, etc. Not all of the material was even well-supported. If anyone wants to change the material, they should discuss it here first and obtain a consensus for the change.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The current edit warring is driven by several WP:SPAs, one of which took over directly after I'd warned the other of edit warring. JNW (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

And here I thought we were done with this newspaper "controversy".  █ EMARSEE 01:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that such red-top reporting is appropriate in an encyclopediac article at all. It's a very minor issue and if had my way, it would be removed completely. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree, having the issue in the article violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS.  █ EMARSEE 06:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I totally forgot we have those guidelines. Thanks. Perhaps we can get a mini consensus from the regular editors to scrap it - or just do it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• Get rid of all per WP:NOTNEWS, A very minor issue that's not worth reading IMO. -

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 11:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see an imperative to retain this section, which documents a passing local story. The mention here looks like an attempt to publicize the issue, as well [1], and isn't noteworthy enough to merit inclusion in an article of greater scope. Initially I'd thought this was a case of the student promoting himself, but now I'm wondering if there's an organizational engine at work [2]. JNW (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion whether the section should remain in. I lean in favor of removing it, but mainly because it's jarring. You have a relatively short article about a school, and other than the usual stuff about what's taught, what kind of facilities it has, the history, etc., you have this single section on the 2011 incident. It can't really go into another section (the section header of course gives it greater prominence), and it just sticks out. Plus, it might have been of some interest when it happened (locally), but it has little encyclopedic value in the broader scheme.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If it had been something of national interest with broad, in depth media coverage, such as a mass shooting or kidnapping from the schoolyard of a highly notable student, or a high profile case against one of the staff, it would of course be kept. But this is just local tittle-tattle. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burnaby South Secondary School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131213042936/http://sd41.bc.ca/programs/apCourses.htm to http://sd41.bc.ca/programs/apCourses.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)