Talk:Huntley High School

Stub

I created the stub, and will be editing this, as it was my middle and high school, I just don't have the time do do it right now, but will in the NEAR future.

Forgot my stamp Danl 06:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent deletions

I have recently deleted some material from this article that is simply unencyclopedic. A vast majority of it is not supported by any references, and in some cases comes across as opinion rather than fact. This is an encyclopedia. Facts need to be encyclopedic. They need to be supported by reliable sources. In the absence of those sources, claims may be deleted.

If there is some contention that these facts are encyclopedic, and that they an be supported by reliable sources, please talk about it here, and let's see if we can hash them out. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Edits of 11/22/2013

Please note that there are guidelines for what should and should not be discussed in a high school article. You will find them at WP:SCH/AG. One editor has been edit warring back in my revisions of the unencyclopedic content of this article and refuses to engage in discussion of it, even though the WP:BURDEN is on him. So, I will once more remove the out of guideline content and again invite him here to the discussion HE should have started,to justify why all this unencyclopedic, and mostly unreferenced, content content should be here. No one is contesting that the school has had a bunch of not quite championship achievements. Not quite championship achievements do not belong here. Nor does info on schedules, unreferenced material that is primarily someone's opinion, or any of a number of other things I have removed. John from Idegon (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

If you go back and look at the edits, you will see that the material is now cited, the writing has been improved, the unencyclopedic parts have been removed, and you have yet to show me any RULE or POLICY (or even a GUIDELINE) that says that cited material about a school making it to state, or winning regionals or conference an incredible amount of times is somehow unencyclopedic. Nothing in that guideline supports your removal of this material. Abog (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It falls under WP:BRD, and your continued edit warring has become a WP:3RR violation. I suggest you revert the most recent revert yourself until consensus exists. I am reporting the edit warring to WP:3RRN, a self revert will resolve that issue. If consensus develops to restore the material, it can be re-added later. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: now that a working ref is available, I believe that some of the material is usable. However, it's currently written in more of a narrative style, rather than an encyclopedic style. There also remain some unsourced claims and weasel words, as well as mentions of individuals that currently do not appear to meet WP:BIO guidelines and should not be listed per WP:SCH/AG.

However, the 3RR issue remains, and needs to be resolved at this point. Please revert your edit and begin discussing the changes here on the talk page to get consensus before restoring it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your acknowledgement that the material regarding achievements is usable. I have removed the coaches' names, per your suggestion and WP:BIO guidelines. I am open to making further modifications to improve the writing as well. Thanks. Abog (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

There is a lot of edit warring going on in this article. We need all the help we can get to bring school articles up to encyclopedia standards and this article needs much attention. Editors who edit war can face temporary blocking in order to prevent disruption, and the article may be protected so that only admins can edit it. Please do not let it go this far. Instead, please see WP:WPSCH/AG for information on school articles, and if there are any disputes that cannot be resolved, editors can always ask for the opinions of the coordinators of the school project at WT:WPSCH. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Clean up

All schools are proud of their academic and athletic achievements and it is natural for those editors with a close connection to the school to wish to extol those virtues. However, encyclopedic articles must be free of personal point of view and any promotional prose. The article has been re-edited by a coordinator of WP:WPSCH, but some details must be supported by reliable sources otherewise they too will be removed. Please help to keep this article on track. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Since when do we have less than state championship achievements in high school articles? The guidelines are pretty clear that for US high schools, the only allowed athletic achievement is state championship. Thanks, K, for removing the strictly POV stuff. John from Idegon (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

So for those who can't be bothered to read it, this is the applicable section. Was trying to send it earlier, but the end of work rush met an edit conflict. per WP:SCH/AG, "Major extra curricular championships should be appropriately listed in a "Sports", "Athletics", or "Activities" section. Major extra curricular championships will be defined as the highest possible championship a team can win from that activity's organizing committee. In the United States, this would nominally be a "state championship". Individual awards should generally not be listed. National championships, when referenced, may also be listed." (emphasis added). That was the basis of removing all of the copy in the sports section. Above the quoted section from the guidelines, under extra-curricular activities, it also says "Mention the sports team(s) of the school and what is notable about them." I see nothing in that that allows just random discussion of which team is the best one the school has (POV), discussion of how often their teams have lost the state championship, number of trips to the state tournament, etc. There is specific language stating that the only accomplishment we are going to talk about is state (or national) championships. Notability, in its use above has got to mean more than simply getting written up in the newspaper. Every game for at least football and basketball gets written up in the paper. Every state tourney game no matter the sport gets written up in the paper. every state final level game gets written up in multiple papers, from one end of the state to the other. Since we put specific language in the guideline regarding talking only about the state champion, doesn't it follow that the notability the first sentence of the extra-curricular activities section of the guidelines is talking about is for something other than accomplishments on the field of play? We have delineated what we can talk about from on the field of play (state champions only). What I see being listed here as notable is things like garnering national attention for (just examples) having a female on the football team, or the school that recently had players arrested for an on field fight, or, heaven forbid, a student losing their life in a game. Schools that have more accomplished athletic teams will have more in their article. Sad as it is, athletics is what far and away most of the press on schools is about. John from Idegon (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Concurring on all points - do any further clean ups you consider necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. However, I am going to let the flames die down before making any more changes. I don't think the person opposing has come to an understanding of what the problem is and I do not want to get caught up in an EW at this time. Waiting seems more prudent. John from Idegon (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I have done some radical pruning and recasting already and if any of it is changed to reinsert content contrary to guidelines, as I consider myself involved now, I'll ask another uninvolved admin to step in and use their tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

That's why I am standing back. My intention is to pretty much go back to where I had it before the EW started. The other editor involved is already at 3RRNB for it, and by rights, perhaps I should be too. The other involved editors are both admins so this will keep. John from Idegon (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I have thought about this a lot over the weekend, and even though I probably could have gone on here yesterday, I decided to wait a little longer, and come on here with a clearer head. Thank you John for pointing out to me the part of the guideline that references what you believe to be the criteria for including extra-curricular accomplishments. I do take issue with it though, and feel that restricting it to only including 1st place finishes in state is a little too limiting. More often than not, schools don't place 1st in state. And yet, when they go to state, they still receive giant trophies and medals. It's a rare thing to go to state, especially for public schools in large states like Illinois. This means that a school even making it to the state finals is a significant accomplishment. It's no different than the great actors and musicians that have been nominated many times for awards (and have entire Wikipedia articles dedicated to their nominations and awards, including many awards that are actually probably not all that notable), but haven't won, or have only won once or twice but have been nominated many times. Similarly, I don't know why including when a school sport made it to the state finals cannot be included. It's a few paragraphs we're talking about for this article, and probably for most schools of this size and age. It also satisfies the guideline that states "Mention the sports team(s) of the school and what is notable about them". I think it is more in keeping with Wikipedia's standards to have well-cited factual information about the most notable and accomplished sports in paragraph form, rather than a list of every sport and club the school offers. Although I still think the list of activities is important to have, it provides greater context to the general reader by including a few sentences of what the most accomplished sports programs are, as backed up by multiple appearances at state, extraordinary number of conference titles, etc. If you were to ask the average local person what is notable about Huntley High School, they would probably tell you, a.) the fact that it's grown a lot, b.) the mascot change, c.) the accomplished volleyball program, and now increasingly, d.) the accomplished non-athletic programs like journalism and speech. By deleting c and d, you are basically making Wikipeda irrelevant as a source for good information about high schools. This is not a POV thing. On Wikipedia, I would think people would want to know what schools have made it to state for any school. I know I do. In fact, one of the few things on signs welcoming visitors to towns in Illinois is a listing of the town's high school sports appearances at state, right after the name of the town, the population, and the year the town was established. I also want you to know that I am all about ensuring that everything is cited, well-written, etc. Before I was blocked, I added references to the article, and also accepted Kudpung's edits, and even did a bit of further copy-editing of my own. However, I still take issue with excluding extra-curricular state appearances and I hope to have a larger discussion and build better group consensus on this. Thanks. Abog (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome back. I am sorry you got blocked, I truly am. It would have been much simpler just to talk about this in the first place. Please don't take this the wrong way, but it appears this is your first foray into a content discussion on Wikipedia. Brevity is valued. There are many editors that would simply reply to the above with WP:TLDR. That being said, I will try to address your salient points as I see them.

1. Guidelines are in place for a reason. Think back to when you used an encyclopedia as a kid. (Mine was World Book). I found it reassuring and simplifying if I could go to an article, and it was structured the same way that articles of a similar nature were. I knew where in the article I could find the information I needed, and I knew what information would be available there. Wikipedia has never been nor is it designed to be a storehouse for the sum of human knowledge on a subject. We simply report on what reliable secondary sources are saying on a subject, briefly.
2. What locals think should be in an article does not matter. They are not the intended audience for the article. The entire English-speaking world is. Making it to states is only significant to the locals. You have more or less said that yourself.
3. The school article content guidelines cover all school articles. It may well be if you take the unencyclopedic content out of this article, there may be little left. It is a smallish school. However, if we allowed a wider range of accomplishments, articles about long established large schools would all have to have an athletic fork. Small subjects get small articles. Please don't look at that as insulting. There are plenty of schools that once you describe the physical location and list the most important people, you are out of things to write about.
4. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is verifiability. You state that the material removed was not POV, but it was not sourced to anything. That was especially directed to the content about the rival high school and fights, etc. However, strictly speaking, you can only use terms of praise if you can find a source using that term. Otherwise, it is POV.
5. You seem to be laboring under a misconception that is not uncommon here in Wiki-land. In Wikipedia policy or guidelines, or even for most experienced Wikipedians, the term "notability" has a very significant and pretty much objective meaning. It does not equate to fame or importance or any of a hundred other terms that may be defined by someone's opinion. It simply means that independent, reliable, secondary sources are writing about it (or "making note" of it--hence the term). So if you can find references talking about the general greatness of say the vollyball program, some of that material could be included.
6. If the above doesn't clarify why everyone has disagreed with you, briefly let us know why. However, if your goal here is to change the guidelines so we discuss leas than state championship achievements, this is really not the right venue. That would be at the school article guidelines talk page, here. John from Idegon (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but this is actually not my first content discussion on Wikipedia. I've actually been a Wikipedia editor for seven years and have had a lot of great content discussions with editors on Wikipedia and as heated as they sometimes can get, we typically always reach a compromise, and I've never seen anyone take issue with the length of people's responses before. Often it helps to use more words when necessary to explain something so that the other person fully understands your point of view. In response to your points:

1. I fully understand the importance of structure and uniformity so that articles are easy to read. That being said, Wikipedia is also an online encyclopedia which allows for more information than a paper or CD-rom encyclopedia was ever able to provide, which makes it all the better for academic research and making Wikipedia the ultimate go-to place for information. I fully understand the need to avoid trivia, cruft, useless information, folklore, unsourced info, recentism, etc. I understand that this article had some things that really did not belong here and support their removal, as I would in any school article.
2. While I understand your point about locals, locals are really the only people that truly know anything about a particular high school, with notable exceptions (Columbine). One would have to go out of their way to research test scores, enrollment, sports records, and newspapers to actually gain any knowledge about a high school. This is where I think Wikipedia could provide value by incorporating all of this info into the article. By actually including state appearances, once can get a better idea of the school's success in extra-curricular activities. To me, making it to state in a particular activity or sport multiple times is more notable and says more about the strength of a program than the school that only won once at state and that's it. And I really am fine with just a simple list like this: "The following teams have finished in the top four of their respective IHSA sponsored state tournament or meet: Baseball: 4th place (2009–10); Volleyball (Girls): 4th place (1994–95, 97-98), 3rd place (1996–97), 2nd place (1990–91, 95-96); Journalism: 2nd place (2011, 2013), 3rd place (2007, 2010); Science Olympiad: 4th place at State (2010–11); Basketball (Girls): 4th place (2013)." It's something that is fully objective, can be uniformly placed into all articles, and still exists in many high school articles. It gives a more comprehensive understanding to the quality of the school's extra-curricular programs, rather than just a list of what the school offers. It's something I would want to see in all high school articles, even if it means that some schools that are larger or who win everything all the time may have larger articles (which they probably should if they're that good).
3. Here's where the misunderstanding comes in. I am actually fully on-board with removing uncited and unverifiable information. If you actually reviewed the full edit history for the article, in my subsequent reverts (after the initial one), I eventually removed the info on the fights and agreed with Kudpung's edits.
4. I understand the importance of citing material and notability. The school's state appearances are well-documented on the IHSA websites and in newspapers. A school winning the state championship is typically not any more well-documented than a school making it to the state finals, so therefore it is really not that much more notable. I am sure I could also find additional sources for the additional awards won by the journalism program (i.e. the National Pacemaker Award).
5. Lastly, I think it is a stretch to say that EVERYONE disagrees with me. The only ones that have really been in discussion here are you, me, and Kudpung. It appears that Kudpung was ready to leave the list of state appearances on the article, as it is notable and backed up by reliable sources. He only concurred with you once you made an objection, and probably just to keep the peace. Barek only objected to the edit warring really.

In any regard, I fully understand that unencyclopedic info and trivial information or hearsay or things not backed up by sources, have no place in this article or in any article. That being said, I feel that appearances in state finals have just as much notability as 1st place finishes in state, and should thus be included. That is the only thing that really needs to be discussed further at this point. And if it is more appropriate, I will take it to the project page. Thanks. Abog (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Please don't attribute motives to the other editors. It isn't constructive. As far as words go, I responded in kind to you so I will leave that out. In all that you have written, I see no argument whatsoever except for two commonly held fascicles, that being WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In some states the state athletic authority actually has an online catalouge of all results of every game every school plays. By your argument above a comprehensive listing of every result could be put into articles. That would clearly serve no-one. The former dialouge on the superiority of the volleyball team could come back with referencing to a newspaper article, just so long as the source actually supported the edit. It is unfortunate, but clearly a line has to be drawn somewhere. Where it is drawn now is at state champions, and that is a very fair place. To win a state championship is a very important achievement, one they sometimes even make movies about (Hoosiers comes to mind). And seriously, everything below being the champion is just the highest level of losing. I am hoping to see some other opinions from other editors here. Take care. I'll check back this evening. John from Idegon (talk) 17:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll just point out that when I cleaned this article up, I only took out the worst of what I found. Anything that I left in does not mean that I tacitly approve of it. WP:WPSCH/AG are the criteria we work to and any changes would need a formal discussion at WT:WPSCH. That said, those guidelines have been in effect for a very long time, and any changes would affect thousands of US schools. If there are any school articles where the inclusion of sport results oversteps the guidelines, it's because we haven't come across them yet. That said, it's interesting to note this preoccupation with sports in US schools rather than academic achievements, in fact that's all there is for content in many US school articles. In the UK it's entirely the opposite. Probably a cultural dichotomy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, maybe you've failed to fully read my response or at least understand the argument, which is that a 1st place finish isn't really any more notable than a state appearance, other than the number. All state finals appearances are generally celebrated and documented in the same way, regardless of whether it's 4th, 3rd, 2nd, or 1st place. The other argument is that it provides more information and context to the reader regarding the quality of the extra-curricular programs in an objective manner. In my opinion, it makes Wikipedia more useful to the reader by providing more information. In my opinion, we should include all state appearances and let the reader make their own inferences. Otherwise, right now, to me, with the guidelines as they are, Wikipedia is irrelevant and not useful in matters relating to high school sports, even though it provides a wealth of information on a myriad of other topics. We should be consistent here. As for U.S. high schools, yes, I do believe our culture places more emphasis on athletic achievements than academic achievements. That's just the way it is. And there are really only a few objective ways to measure academics and athletics (list of subjects and athletic programs in the curriculum, and statistics like state appearances in state athletic contests, performance on test scores, graduation rates, any awards received, and any major press coverage). Abog (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was a bit TL;DR. Apart from my anecdotal mention of the cultural dichotomy, I've said what I think, but there's more now at WT:WPSCH where you have now started a discussion and where the general aspects of WP:WPSCH/AG should be discussed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the first sentence in my last response was more directed at John from Indegon who claimed he didn't see a good argument from me. Since this discussion is now more about the guidelines than it is about Huntley High School, I agree we should continue the discussion that I have started here. Thanks. Abog (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Kudpung. I will pitch my pennies in at the other discussion. For Abog, one place a local editor has a big advantage in writing school articles is the history section, as frequently the local library's clip file will have resources not available outside the area. At this point, I do not really see the "Start" rating on this article. It is close, but it looks more like a really complete stub to me. A well written history section would push this to a solid start, and possibly up to a "C". Something to think about. I encourage you to do what you think you can do regarding what we include in school articles, but that will not happen quickly. In the meantime, you could work toward improving this article within the existing framework. John from Idegon (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry - the discussion is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines

I'd love to write about the history of this school (and perhaps others in the area), but much of the history of Huntley High School revolves around the growth of the school (already mentioned), the mascot (already mentioned), and the appearances of the athletic programs at state finals (not allowed to be mentioned per the guidelines). Anything else is probably going to be folklore and/or not notable. So really, my work here is done. Abog (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Did the kids around there not go to school before 1997? Was there a consolidation at that time or was a new school built? Is this a new name for the school? Where was the prior school with this name? When did it open? If this is a new name, where did the kids go before? If there was a consolidation, what schools were consolidated? There is a ton of things lacking in the history of this school. John from Idegon (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

To answer your questions, "The current building, located at 13719 Harmony Road in Huntley, IL, was constructed in 1997, and at the time was the school district’s first new building in about 30 years. It was originally designed as a middle-high school, with a shared cafeteria and library in the center of the building. The original high school building, located on Mill Street in Huntley, was built in the 1960s and only featured about a dozen classrooms and outdated facilities. In the 1990s, the district’s enrollment increased with suburban growth, and the school facilities needed to be expanded. After the new building was built in 1997, the old building served grades 4-5, before finally being converted into a recreational center when it was sold to the Huntley Park District in the early 2000s." That's really all you need to know and it's already in the article. The most notable thing that happened between the 1960s and 1997 (when the school was housed in the old building) was the state appearances in volleyball. You have to remember, it was a small town then...not a whole lot goes on. From 1955 to the 1960s, the high school shared space with the elementary school on Lincoln Street. Prior to 1955, the school was housed in a different building on Main Street. I suppose I could add that if I find a source. Abog (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The local library quite possibly has sources. Sources do not have to be online. Most libraries archive newspapers, and the local paper will have all sorts of info about the school. If your small town is similar to the small town I spent most of my life in in Michigan, the school is the main thing the local paper writes about. Non-controversial information only has to be sourced if someone contests it. And the school has history, you have just indicated that. As you said, it is a small town. You are not going to be able to make the school sound totally awesome, because it isn't. But it has history, probably even more than you have indicated. You are not going to be able to make it sound better than it is, and that should not be your goal. Just write about what you have in neutral language, and don't let your love of the school get in your way. I understand that feeling very well, believe me. I think the little town I used to live in in Michigan is just about the greatest place on earth. but it is what it is, a boring little town of 2000 people where not much happens. It doesn't stop me from finding out about what has happened and writing about it here. That is what makes for a really good article. Find out as much as you can, write about what falls within guidelines and let it go. The history section of a school article is much less restricted than talking about accomplishments. John from Idegon (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Huntley High School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090131092612/http://isbe.state.il.us:80/research/htmls/report_card.htm to http://www.isbe.state.il.us/research/htmls/report_card.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Huntley High 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/20090523105237/http://www.ihsa.org/school/enrolla.htm to http://www.ihsa.org/school/enrolla.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 00:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)