Talk:Cary Academy

go ca!

what about the new senior tradition of victory cigars?

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. ~~ N (t/c) 15:44, 27 November 2006 (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. 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. Santiagonasar 22:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

"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"

This is not entirely true. I suggest you look over the page describing 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.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. Santiagonasar 01:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)