Talk:School diva

Biased

Obviously written by someone with poor experiences in high school.

Wrong place

Just about everything on that "Roles in schools" template (this article included) is in the wrong place. These articles are unencyclopedic and should all be taken to AfD. A better place to create these would be over at Meta wiki: About Meta. Article to be included in Wikipedia (here) need to be referenced from reliable sources. Otherwise it's all just a load of original research or own point of view. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The entry for Queen Bee reads almost exactly the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.251.169.70 (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources

I challenge the sources that have just been added in the course of the AFD. My impression is that someone has just searched for the phrase without checking the context. For example, Godley's Magazine is about costume. How is this relevant?

In any case, how does this article go beyond what we already have in diva. If the synthesis presented here cannot be better supported, I propose to redirect to that article.

Colonel Warden (talk) 08:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It goes against it because that page refers to opera, not a school stereotype. I'm serious! Angie Y. (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I will not refute that I took some of the citations out of context; however, they are not all out of context, and I would challenge you to prove otherwise. The diva article you cited is singularly about adults in the context of the arts; this topic is a school-specific phenomenon that has been studied by educational researchers, and it wouldn't be appropriate to insert this information into diva as it currently exists. • Freechild'sup? 16:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Google scholar shows no hits for the term school diva. The usage in this article is covered by the diva article which discusses application of the term to women of a certain type. That section can be developed further to cover this usage too. The school context does not seem that special. One could equally talk of office divas and cite examples from Ugly Betty. Just more of the same. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, Colonel Warden, you are taking the Godley's citation out of context: reading the sentence you will see that it is simply used to support the statement that the phrase has been used in publications as old as that particular Godley's edition of 1898. • Freechild'sup? 16:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

An article here is supposed to be about the topic, not the word or phrase. If the phrase is used in a different context, as it seems to be, then it's misleading. Please seeThe differences between encyclopedia and dictionary articles which explains this in more detail. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Resorting to condescension will not help us resolve this disagreement; I have a little experience here and will not accept be talked down to or being treated in an otherwise uncivil manner. You need to walk through each of the citations and demonstrate their inability to support the usage, or you should back off your point.• Freechild'sup? 17:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Citing policy is not condescending. For one thing, it seems to change over time and so your experience is no guarantee of current knowledge. In any case, there's more than the two of us here and the matter seems to need full explanation.

Moving on, let's dispose of the Godley's Magazine source. The context provided by Google Books is "Your school will commence again in a few months, and you will hare another teacher as good, or better, ... her success when her school-diva If • shall ...". It seems that Google's digitisation has garbled the text here. The word hare should obviously be have and so I suppose that school-diva If is likewise a garbled word. Can we agree that this is inadmissable as a valid source and that the claims for long-standing usage should go with it? Colonel Warden (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Re-reading the article, I don't disagree that it can be merged successfully with diva; however, that article is a mess and should be dealt with before this is merged there, lest we merely compound the issues there. • Freechild'sup? 18:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Ok. It might be that diva is not the best destination though. I've been thinking about other possible terms. Jewish-American Princess, bully, prom queen. Maybe there are more...?

• Anyway, let's look at another source. Turner, J.B. (2004) Your Musical Child: Inspiring Kids to Play and Sing for Keeps. p 187. doesn't seem to stand up. This comes from a chapter All in the Musical Family and it seems clear that it is the musical usage which is meant - it's is all about developing musical skill. This is not what the article is about and so I'm taking that out too. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional sources template added, as the article still contains plenty of unsourced material and it would benefit greatly from some additional online information. Some people may be unable to access the books listed in the references section, which is still fairly threadbare. Beemer69 06:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Illustrations?

Should this article need pictures to demonstrate the school diva? Angie Y. (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

TV Tropes

This article sounds like something that would fit in better on TV Tropes.--Hailey 23:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well-liked?

Really? isn't that the exact opposite of what the article is about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.65.246 (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)