Talk:Cape Fear High School

List of former principals

John from Idegon, in WP:WPSCH/AG#OS, it says, "A list of former headteachers/principals, with a short description of their achievements, is often useful. Long lists should be split into a separate article." An example is given, List of headmasters at Eton College, of which lists former principals without saying anything meaningful about them. A list of former principals is useful information that may be extremely difficult to find otherwise. Additionally, WP:LISTPEOPLE clearly states that it is acceptable to include a list of headmasters (in this case, principals), regardless of notability.

Also, I'm not sure what you're getting at when you say it's poorly source. Everything in the paragraph before the list was sourced, and the principals in the list has a reference that shows the person was a principal of the school, and shows the time period the person was the principal, of which only one principal does not have any reference. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"is often useful" is a permission, not a mandate. There is a world of difference between the principal of a public school in the United States and the headmaster of a thousand year old institution in England. As far as difficulty of accessibility argument, that's fallacious. School employment history is public record. This isn't Localwiki. Names of people who no-one outside the immediate context of the subject would know are seldom useful. We already heve a mechanism to include names that our audience will perhaps find useful. And it's poorly sourced because all you have are connected sources. Encyclopedias are tertiary. We don't write about the school; we write about what has been written about the school. For a school like Eton, that's a lot. For a smallish public school whose age we don't even know, there's not much. Please concentrate on the things the world wants and or needs to know. The history of the school is far more important. John from Idegon (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Having been inexperienced, I did not understand the guidelines or reasoning enough to understand this, but now it seems clear that the list of principals should be readded. The reasoning given to remove this is based on no guidelines, instead saying that the content is unencyclopedic because public records are available via the school. By this logic, the fact that we can cite sources to anything using a website just goes to show that the content being cited is unencyclopedic. Additionally, the idea that adding this "is not a mandate" does not point to the fact that it should not be added, nothing is a mandate. Additionally, the guidelines I have given clearly say that in general, such a list is acceptable, having given no exceptions of where it is not acceptable. Since the removal is unfounded and does not cite and guidelines, it is added back.

Also, it seems that the reasoning given for being poorly sourced is that it has not been seriously written on within the citations given. If that is the case, then does this mean that the school colors, coordinates, or list of athletic teams should not be included? This doesn't make sense, at the end of the day, there are going to be unnotable things that should still be included. For this particular example, this is especially true since it has been made clear in the guidelines that past unnotable principals should be listed.TheGEICOgecko (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

List of sports teams - not notable

Hey, I'll try this out the correct way - by checking in on the talk page before wielding the blankhammer!

Seems like lists of sports teams aren't required to be held up as automatically notable. It looks like the cheerleading squad should probably stay, but I'd like to see the non-notable lists removed. I can add 'citation needed' tags if that will help with the organization.

While we're on the subject of notability, should non-championship or runner-up status really count as notable? 3rd for band seems marginal, 15th for ROTC seems non-notable, and 18th for color guard? These should probably be removed for notability concerns.

I'd be fine with top five, but I'm happy to have a conversation here, on the talk page, before I start editing a page that is obviously well-maintained by diligent editors.  ;) 38.75.239.15 (talk) 06:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I know that @TheGEICOgecko edits this page, perhaps he can chime in. 38.75.239.15 (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm baffled that you consider 3rd in a multi-state competition, or 15th/18th for a national and international competition unnotable, after insisting top 8 or top 5 in the state is notable. Regardless, if there's anything we've learned after the long discussions we've had on the Colorado and Connecticut pages, it's that notability does not matter. All that matters is that it has reliable secondary sources, and it isn't trivially descriptive or something of the like (e.g., you don't need that paper source for Gateway, cause notability has nothing to do with including it). As a matter of fact, I plan on including more info about this school when I get around to it, feel free to do the same with Gateway. Also feel free to critique anything else here, some of the stuff I added here was before I was too familiar with editing. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 06:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Nah, it's your school, your page. You've got updated guidelines, you do the editing - I don't know anything about the school, so I'll stay away.

And like I said, nothing about Gateway is particularly notable - mostly, the white schools refused to come to games played in our gym, but don't have a citation for that.  :) What's there now is about as accurate a take on Gateway as there is. Probably just leave it that way.

Insert "Gosh, Kyle, we really learned something today" from South Park here, I guess. Have fun editing! 38.75.239.15 (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)