Jump to content

Talk:Cary Academy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
7,579,977 edits
 
(59 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}}
{{Project North Carolina}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|blp=yes|
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Low |NC=Yes |NC-importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Schools |importance= Low }}
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors}}
}}
{{Old peer review|archive=1}}


==Wiki Education assignment: University Writing 1020 Communicating Feminism TR1 pm==
go ca!
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/The_George_Washington_University/University_Writing_1020_Communicating_Feminism_TR1_pm_(Fall_2024) | assignments = [[User:IsabellaChe|IsabellaChe]] | start_date = 2024-08-20 | end_date = 2024-12-10 }}


<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:IsabellaChe|IsabellaChe]] ([[User talk:IsabellaChe|talk]]) 17:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)</span>
what about the new senior tradition of victory cigars?


== Debating section ==
:Yeah, a 'tradition' that's run for one year. Sorry.
:As a CA student, I doubt that our Fine Arts department, while high-quality, is "widely known." I'm not aware that we get any more coverage in local papers, for instance, than other schools' productions... I'm going to cut that, in fact. ~~ '''[[User:Nickptar|N]]''' ([[User talk:Nickptar|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Nickptar|c]]) 15:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


The new debating section is a good addition to this article. However, it is a bit too long given the overall length of the article (called undue weight in Wikipedia's guidelines). My suggestion is to condense the individual winner list by dropping the student names and just listing each award once with the years won. As in: NC Lincoln Douglas Debate State Champion, 2004, 2007, 2008.... If this is done, this list should be ordered alphabetically (I placed the list as it exists in chronological order per [[Wikipedia:MOS|MOS]]. Also, it might be helpful to link this to the award to [[Lincoln–Douglas debate format]] since not all readers will know what this means. It also would be good to add some secondary sources, such as newspaper articles about the awards; the current sources are reliable but are not independent of the school since it is a member of the organization. [[User:Rublamb|Rublamb]] ([[User talk:Rublamb|talk]]) 12:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
The references to individual students, teachers and courses need to be removed. The athletics section also needs to be more concise.

Some new sources added, possibly biased language revised. [[User:Mah159|Mah159]] 05:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete the team facts section within athletics. Completely irrelevant to the article.

On claims that have been made in edit summaries with regard to notability and self-promotion:
1. The notability argument does not hold water--after all, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedic resource providing as much information that others may find useful as possible (within copyright bounds, etc.), and there is definitely a significant community that would find this information useful. The facts in this section are of direct relevance to anyone in the North Carolina high school running community and possibly some others; they are almost certainly of greater reader interest than many of the more obscure cultural or taxonomical articles, all of which are undeniably an asset to Wikipedia anyway because they increase its breadth of coverage. If someone deleted the first article on a rare insect subspecies because no other rare insect subspecies had an article, useful information would be lost to the public, and it seems that this is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.
2. Facts cannot be considered to constitute self-promotion, and in fact the talk and history pages indicate that alleged biases have been taken seriously and corrected. If anyone feels that there are particular passages that are self-promoting, please do not hesitate to bring them up.
[[User:Santiagonasar|Santiagonasar]] 22:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
:<blockquote>"The notability argument does not hold water--after all, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedic resource providing as much information that others may find useful as possible"</blockquote>
:This is not entirely true. I suggest you look over the page describing [[WP:What Wikipedia is not|what Wikipedia is not]]---specifically, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Ideally, the Wikipedia article paints a broad picture of a subject, offering links and references to relevant sites where interested users can find more detailed information. Since it seems as though the vast majority of the information contained in the `Cross Country' section can be found at http://www.carunning.com, it is unnecessary to repeat this all in the Wikipedia article. Rather, it would make more sense to pare down the article, and then offer a link to carunning.com in the `External Links and Resources' section. No information would be lost to the public, and a leaner Wikipedia entry means it will be easier for users to cull important information from the article quickly.[[User:Hobbes512|Hobbes512]] 00:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a valid point. To be honest though this page does only cover the most important facts about the team--coaches, course records, championships, etc. In this sense it is by no means a repetition of carunning.com--it is a summary of key points, just as any encyclopedia article is just a summary of its sources (or one source in the case of many article). Given these considerations, the article is not an indiscriminate collection of information at all; if all the team members were listed with their race times, et cetera it would be a different story.
I think I should give some background on the section. The Cross Country section used to be a separate article; nickptar (wikipedia admin and current senior not affiliated with the team) said it would be best to merge it with the main article, which according to nickptar was probably written by someone not affiliated with the school. This original section was essentially a stub plus the list of plays (probably since the plays are easy to access on the Internet). The academics section at the time of merging in order to keep it from being just Cross Country and arts; in accordance with nickptar's suggestions the language was modified somewhat and several of the sources were added. I agree that there is some one-sidedness in the article but since the current information is all of relevance to many people, it seems the solution would be to expand more rather than to delete. I think this was the basic plan for the article at the time of merging.
[[User:Santiagonasar|Santiagonasar]] 01:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:38, 2 January 2025


Wiki Education assignment: University Writing 1020 Communicating Feminism TR1 pm

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2024 and 10 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): IsabellaChe (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by IsabellaChe (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debating section

[edit]

The new debating section is a good addition to this article. However, it is a bit too long given the overall length of the article (called undue weight in Wikipedia's guidelines). My suggestion is to condense the individual winner list by dropping the student names and just listing each award once with the years won. As in: NC Lincoln Douglas Debate State Champion, 2004, 2007, 2008.... If this is done, this list should be ordered alphabetically (I placed the list as it exists in chronological order per MOS. Also, it might be helpful to link this to the award to Lincoln–Douglas debate format since not all readers will know what this means. It also would be good to add some secondary sources, such as newspaper articles about the awards; the current sources are reliable but are not independent of the school since it is a member of the organization. Rublamb (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cary_Academy&oldid=1266894485"