Talk:Stow–Munroe Falls High School

Salary data

The salary data recently added into the article is not appropriate for this article because first, the data is about the district and not specifically the high school. There is an entire article about the Stow-Munroe Falls City School District where information that is directly relevant to the district should be. Information in this article should be directly related to the high school itself. Second, even if this were appropriate for this article, it would be placed within the body of the article, not the lead. The lead is a summary of the entire article, so it shouldn't have any info that isn't found elsewhere in the article. Finally, no, just because something can be sourced does not mean it belongs in an article. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING: "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight." Later, in WP:IINFO it states "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."

My suggestion would be to create a "Budget" section in the article on the district and place this info there. I would also recommend adding info on the total budget itself, like how much it is, where funding comes from, and what the main expenditures are. As it stands now, this only dwells on one aspect of the budget and thus, seems to be trying to make some kind of statement beyond just presenting facts. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Based on DontHideTruth's username, user page, user talk page, and recent edit to SMFHS, this user may also have some issues w/ WP:NPOV. Levdr1lp / talk 23:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Rivals

In looking at the rivals section of the infobox and in the article, I can definitely see Falls, Hudson, and Roosevelt as rivals, but not Tallmadge. The source for Tallmadge is a single dead article that mentions them as a "backyard rival" for a boys soccer game. That's a fairly typical statement for schools that are nearby like Stow and Tallmadge are, but doesn't necessarily mean there's an established rivalry. It's often along the same lines as calling a team a "division rival" or "league rival" (for instance, an article on Stow's own athletics site mentions "division rival Twinsburg"). It certainly isn't anything on the level of Falls, Hudson, or Roosevelt as Stow and Tallmadge don't regularly play each other in any sports (they are not scheduled to play even in boys soccer this fall). Of the other 3 schools listed as rivals, Falls and Hudson are obviously in the same league, while Roosevelt has a history with Stow and they still regularly play each other in several sports. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The dead-link "backyard rival" source is for boys basketball, not boys soccer (see archived version here). And the difference between Stow/C-Falls and Stow/Huson-or-Kent dwarfs any difference between Stow/Huson-or-Kent and Stow/Tallmadge. In other words, neither Huson nor Kent is on par w/ C-Falls, and they are less on par w/ C-Falls than w/ Tallmadge. There is decades of coverage in both the Beacon Journal and the Sentry, among other sources, verifying that Stow's first and most notable rival is C-Falls. That said, I agree that the Tallmadge "rivalry" seems to reflect Stow's proximity more than anything else, and relevant coverage is light. If we're going to change things, I say remove all but CFHS from infobox, and note CFHS, Hudson, and Kent in body -- w/ emphasis on CFHS rivalry. Levdr1lp / talk 21:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, the point was that Tallmadge and Stow don't play each other in any sports on a regular basis, boys basketball included (they didn't play at all last season), so listing them as a rival isn't accurate. I would just drop Tallmadge from both the infobox and the body. Hudson and Roosevelt do have noted and established rivalries with Stow even if they aren't at the same level as Falls. In the body of the article, it's pretty clear that Falls is the #1 rival. On the Roosevelt article, it's clear Ravenna is Roosevelt's arch-rival, but the Stow rivalry is mentioned since it's fairly prominent, especially in football. Both are listed in the infobox. The infobox just says to list "rivals", so not necessarily the arch rival, but I wouldn't be opposed to just listing Falls in the infobox either. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm okay w/ simply removing Tallmadge from both the body and infobox. Hudson and Kent can stay in the infobox. Levdr1lp / talk 13:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Links

I removed the links "without discussion" because they are typically discouraged under WP:ELYES: "Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any." It also says "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." Whether the links are "stable" (which I'm guessing you mean they've simply been in this article awhile) is largely irrelevant. External links should be kept to a minimum since they simply invite every organization to include their website and soon you have a long list of links. Typically, school articles have included the school's official site and the district's site (though most could avoid even the district website since the school website is usually part of it). WP:WPSCH/AG leaves the possibility for some official sites being included like the PTA, but even that isn't required. For this school, most of the links listed at the bottom (Friends of the Theatre, Athletics, Band Department, and Booster Club) are all linked on the front page of the SMFHS website, so there is no need to list them here as well. The point of the EL section is to provide links to further details, not a directory of every related external website. --JonRidinger (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Initially, JonRidinger cited WP:ELNO as the basis for removing these "excessive" external links (diff), so I'll start there. ELNO lists 19 types of links to "generally" avoid, not one of which applies to the links under discussion. These are not personal blogs, social media pages, fan sites, etc.; rather, they are dedicated websites separate (but mostly linked) from the school's official site, all of which represent organizations which either are part of the school or are school-related. Alternatively, while a strict reading of WP:ELYES may not allow for some of these links, they do satisfy WP:ELMAYBE: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Moreover, the WP:WPSCH guideline for external links states: "Include other informational links that might interest readers, but whose contents might be beyond the scope of inclusion in the article..." The school band and athletics websites in particular offer information readers might find useful, but which does not belong in the article itself. And as one might have inferred from JR's previous post, the alumni association is not linked from the school's official website. Five or six dedicated, established websites does not amount to a directory. Levdr1lp / talk 18:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, then where do we draw the line? Why not a link to the Math Department page? Science Department? How about choir? Josh's Restaurant? What about the specific sports teams? Academic Quiz Bowl? Latin Club? French Club? The alumni association page I could see, but it adds almost no additional info to the topic of the high school itself and most school articles do not include it. It seemed to be more of a social connection page and general listing as opposed to having things like a more detailed history of the school or highlighting famous alums. But really, if the specific link is right on the official school website, there is absolutely no need to include them here, if for not other reason, to discourage every other organization and department at a school of some 1,800 students with dozens of organizations to justifying why their link should also be in the Wikipedia article. Again, absolute minimum of links. I could see your point if the SMFHS page had no other links, but that is definitely not the case here. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Another thing to bear in mind is that external links should be "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject..." (emphasis added). Sites like Band Boosters, Sports Boosters, and Friends of the Theatre are obviously booster sites, i.e. not neutral. Even the Alumni Association page identifies itself as a promotional website. They may not be personal pages or blogs, but they serve to promote their specific organization, not provide "encyclopedic" content. A quick look at the various sites simply has ways to get involved, different fundraisers, and dates of upcoming performances and/or events. None of that contributes to an "encyclopedic understanding" of the high school nor does the absence of that external link in this article lessen the reader's understanding of the topic. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

There are no dedicated websites for the math or science departments, school choir, Joshua's restaurant, quiz bowl team, Latin or French clubs, etc. Virtually all standalone websites related to this school were removed from the external links section last month. I was able to find a single team-specific website, StowFootball.com, and there is also now a site for the Stohion newspaper; both link from the official site. That said, I've reconsidered some of your (JR's) points. I've decided there are some websites which don't belong, specifically those which link from the official site (like the aforementioned football and the Stohion sites). Friends of the Theatre links from the official site at least three times – once from the main page, and at least twice under the "Clubs/Activities" tab (see Drama Club and Senior Class Play pages). SMFBoosters.com also links from the official site's main page. That leaves the Athletics, Band, and Alumni websites, none of which link from the official site (the Band Boosters site is technically a subpage on the main band site, but there is no direct link to main band page, nor does the hyperlink text "Band Boosters" give any reason to think it's a direct link). In addition, because the high school itself technically does not have its own site, but rather a subpage on the District site, I really don't see the need to include the District link. It's redundant, particularly when there's already an article on the District itself. As for neutrality, comprehensive lists of past concert band or marching band shows (the latter of which links to videos from as far back as 1990), or dozens of concert programs dating back nearly 20 years -- I find that type of material neutral enough, and certainly "informative" in the way WP:WPSCH recommends. Similarly, I find schedules for upcoming games/matches for nearly if not all 28 varsity athletic teams -- fall, winter, and spring -- just as informative, though clearly not suitable for inclusion in the article itself. And again, surprising as it may be, these sites do not link from the official website. If/when they do link from it, I would be okay with removing them from the external links section. In the meantime, four websites (Official, Athletics, Bands, Alumni) may not be the "absolute" minimum number of links, but they are the minimum necessary to provide the "maximum amount of information". Levdr1lp / talk 06:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The fact that there aren't "dedicated websites" to those departments wasn't my point; it was hypothetical. The point is that every website associated with the school isn't appropriate for this article and listing even a few opens the door for every department or organization to argue that their website should be included on the links. Nothing stopping any other department from starting a separate website either. Having taken articles through FAC and GAR, both processes were pretty stringent about external links that could be included. Anything beyond the official site had to have a strong case, even for websites that seemed "informative". In the end, anything deemed promotional/commercial was not appropriate for the EL section, even if it had info that could be "informative". Here are my issues with the following:

• Stowband.com: it is linked by going through the individual teacher pages via the "My Teacher" link, specifically the page of Mr. Monroe. It's also linked from the from the Kimpton activities page. I'll agree, not the most direct (the whole SMFHS website could use some work), but it's easy to find with the "search" feature if readers truly are interested in the upcoming band dates, what music has been performed, or when the band went to Disney World. Bear in mind too, dates for school activities are available on the main school calendar, which is linked right on the front page. I think a better option would be to include stowband.com as a reference in the appropriate section. If it can't be used as a reference, that's a pretty good indication it shouldn't be in the EL section either.

• StowHighAthletics: it mainly serves to provide a schedule of events and some limited communication (announcements to specific team members). The link provided on the school website goes to http://stowathletics.digitalsports.com/, which is a full athletic calendar. If your main concern is simply that providing athletic dates falls under "more informative" argument, StowHighAthletics doesn't really provide any more than that. Even then, StowHighAthletics isn't consistently updated, at least as far as results go. For instance, for the spring sports, only softball and bowling even have schedules posted. For a baseball schedule, I'd have to go to the stowathletics.digitalsports.com link anyway. Same for several other sports.

• Stowalumni.org: this is another stretch, mostly because some alumni association sites can be very informative and add encyclopedic value. For instance, the Streetsboro Alumni Association includes its own class pages and most, if not all, have a PDF of that year's yearbook. The Stow site has class pages, but they are hosted off-site, mostly on classreport.com, a social networking site.

My concern is "informative" vs. "encyclopedic" since "informative" can be quite ambiguous. If readers truly are interested in the details of the band, athletics, and alumni, they are more than welcome to do a web search on their own. Bear in mind with WP:ELMINOFFICIAL: "Normally, only one official link is included." It also says to choose links that provide "consistent information" and to avoid both "social networking and communication services", which includes regular websites. That "maximum amount of information" is about the topic (the high school), not every minute detail related to the topic (see WP:EVERYTHING and WP:TOPIC). Don't forget too, some of these sites can be used as references, provided they are sourcing non-controversial information. Primary sources can't be used for supporting outstanding claims as you know, but they can be used to establish simple facts like how big the band program is or what athletic teams are offered. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Good removals. Precedent and policy are clear that EL sections are to be kept brief and only include highly relevant links that avoid turning the article into a directory of links. ElKevbo (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. School articles do not need link farms. Pages for theatre departments, athletics, etc are generally "booster-ish" in nature. The information supplied within is generally of the variety that we wouldn't include in the article per NOTNEWS or NOTDIR. A school article is not about any specific group of people that attended the institution; it is about the institution itself. That eliminates alumni sights. None of the above can be considered neutral...there entire point of existence is to promote. I limit links to official site, district site, possibly a state DOE "snapshot" page with stats (although even that is questionable due to stability), and independent reasonably neutral and reliable sites with historical info. Wholly endorse JonRidinger's removal. John from Idegon (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

It's StowBand.org (not ".com"), and I don't think linking from the Kimpton Middle School site qualifies. Regardless, I did not know that the SMFHS official site links to StowBand.org through the My Teacher tab, which I'm quickly realizing includes dozens more links (mostly to teacher pages hosted on Google Sites); I said I would remove any link found on the SMFHS official site, and I will. Similarly, the SMFHS official site links to StowAthletics.digitalsports.com, and StowHighAthletics.com appears to simply duplicate that site's scheduling information -- no information lost. I will defer to JonRidinger on StowHighAlumni.com. The SMFHS official site itself, however, is a subpage on the main district site. Stow-Munroe Falls City School District already has its own article, and the SMFHS subpage/site also links to the main District page far more prominently than any of the other links we've discussed (a large Bulldog district logo, a text link reading "HOME", both on the top left of the HS site). Linking to only the SMFHS subpage/official site should be sufficient. Both seems redundant. John from Idegon- what are your thoughts on when a school and district share the same site and link to one another? Levdr1lp / talk 19:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

My bad on the StowBand link. And no, I wouldn't have considered the just link from the Kimpton page a main reason to avoid it here. It was simply a supporting argument.

I think inclusion of the district link has been habit for the most part, a holdover from the days when there really weren't separate high school websites. In the vast majority of cases, leaving it out won't be detrimental since, like you said, it's very obvious how to get to the main district page and to other schools. It's especially unnecessary in cases like this where an article on the school district exists.

As for the alumni site, since there doesn't appear to be any detailed or researched history of the school on the site, I'd leave it off since it seems to be more a social site than an informational site. Like I said, the Streetsboro one I could argue for just because it has a lot of historical info (every yearbook up to 2010 is digitized and available). If the Stow site would ever get to a point like that, I would definitely support including it, but I also wonder why it's not linked on the main high school webpage. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Name change

The year for the name change to "Stow-Munroe Falls High School" (1991) is from the yearbooks. The first yearbook to use "Stow-Munroe Falls High School" is the 1992 yearbook (1991-92 school year). There's no specific mention of the change in the yearbook; it's simply used for the first time on the inside title page. Every year before, the title page has "Stow High School". I'd certainly like to get a more definitive and specific source like a newspaper article, but for now, it's not a highly controversial fact, so I think the yearbook can stand as a source until something more detailed can be found. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Voice & verb use

Regarding "personification":

1. "Stow HS moved." Active voice w/ intransitive verb (no object).
2. "Stow HS moved itself." Active voice w/ transitive verb (object used).
3. "Stow HS was moved." Passive voice.

I'm not terribly concerned w/ any minor ambiguity in #1 (people know inanimate things don't actually move themselves). #2 is unambiguous nonsense (again, inanimate things do not actually move themselves). And it's generally best to avoid the weaker sounding passive voice, as in #3; while unambiguously correct (inanimate things are moved by animate ones), I think we can achieve a more satisfactory level of prose here. Levdr1lp / talk 19:43, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

While yes, we do need to be careful about passive voice, we also need to be careful about giving too much personification and possession to the high school itself, since it is an inanimate object. Examples I changed were "Stow High School graduated its first class..." to "the first class graduated in..." to remove possession. Graduation is something that people do, not something that a school does to people. I also broke up the sentence "In total, the school has operated at four different sites, all of which lie within roughly a three-mile (4.8 km) stretch along Graham Road in Stow; the high school's first dedicated building opened in 1924." since the two parts are separate subjects and just don't go together. I broke it in half and added a brief mention of the large addition built in 1953 and the Lakeview building since it wasn't mentioned at all even though that previous sentence says "4". In going through FAC and GAN processes, one thing that constantly came up was to give proper context for things that may not be totally clear, especially in stances like this were the vast majority of readers are likely unfamiliar with the many aspects of the school's history.

Also, be sure to read WP:CAPTION. I noticed you reverted my edit to the caption before, but the caption guideline asks editors to be succinct. In removing the words I did, the main points are still there. The only possible change I might make is giving it context, such as "The Lakeview building in 2010. Home of Stow High School from 1963–1987." or "The Lakeview building in 2010. Since 1987 has served as an intermediate school for grades 5 and 6." or something like that. Again, giving it context without writing a paragraph.

As I'm sure you've noticed, some of the years were slightly off, at least as far as I can tell by looking at the yearbooks. In case you weren't aware, they are available online through the Stow-Munroe Falls Public Library (I placed URLs to each yearbook in the citation), and also on Classmates.com. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Regarding "possession"- I think we're getting a little carried away here. "Graduate" is a verb with different meanings & uses depending on the context, including: "to confer a degree upon, or to grant a diploma to, at the close of a course of study, as in a university, college, or school: Cornell graduated eighty students with honors." Perfectly acceptable, and -- unlike the other version -- grammatically correct. The participle phrase "Established in 1907..." modifies a school, but the subject of that sentence is the first graduating class.

Regarding the years & sources- I think this is a matter of conflicting sources (like you, I would tend to favor the yearbooks here which are contemporary to the events they describe). Levdr1lp / talk 23:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

On a related note, Jim Graner is listed in the most recent (2005?) alumni directory as a 1937 graduate ("James R. Graner"), while the SMF Athletics Boosters list him as a 1938 grad in their hall of fame. Levdr1lp / talk 23:44, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Alumni list

In alumni lists, the best practice I've seen based on WP:ALUMNI is to be as concise with details as possible for each listing since the article is about the school, not the people who went there. Basically, explain why they're notable. For professional athletes, the best use I've seen in school and city articles is to list their current league rather than their current team to avoid it becoming out of date so frequently. Even retired athletes, all that's important is that they played in a notable league (like the NFL or NBA), not a list of every team they may have played for. If readers want to know which teams, they can go to that article. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable, particularly since professional athletes often switch teams. Levdr1lp / talk 23:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)