Wikipedia talk:Schools/Arguments

Change section autonumbers to manual numbers for easier referencing?

I'm going to manually add numbers to each of these arguments, if no one beats me to it. I'd like to refer to specific entries on the list.

Autonumbering will change over time, so that won't work well. I'm sure that eventually, these will be reordered, but for now, having a specific number to refer to will help express my opinion.

As a courtesy, I intend to wait a week before proceeding. (Feel free to do it if consensus develops to do so before then, or if you simply think the idea is good enough to just implement right away.) --Unfocused 04:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've waited far more than a week, and no one has commented. Does anyone have any comments either way about this? Unfocused 02:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

As much as I hate unwikifying something...it would make for a handy way to refer to arguments. I think you should go ahead and do it if you want to. stillnotelf 17:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

"Novice users are intimidated by huge district articles listing many schools, and are unlikely to add relevant information, specific to their school. For instance, adding notable alumni for one school, in a list of many schools is very hard. Also, when a separate school article is necessitated, a novice is unlikely to know how to undo a redirect. A vicious circle is created: the merge prevents expansion, and the lack of expansion is used to justify the merge "

What utter nonsense, no novices are intimidated. --Red stucco 09:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Please put any pro-merge or pro-delete arguements in the appropriate section. Each set of arguemetns is supposed to be a particular point-of-view, and not a two-way-conversation. Likewise, I havnen't and won't edit the "delete" and "merge" or opposing reasons. There is an ongoing conversation at Wikipedia talk:Schools where a full two-way conversation, of point-counter-point is appropriate. --Rob 09:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If people make up weird arguments like "novices will find it difficult to edit merged articles" without giving any evidence, those arguments should be edited to made more neutral --Red stucco 09:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh and please use edit summaries if you are going to revert. --Red stucco 09:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I left the word "Some" so it's not such an absolute arguement. Also, arguements in the sub-page (which is not in article space), is not supposed to be neutrual. Four distinct points-of-view are shown, and should be. WP:NPOV is about articles, not opinions on articles. --Rob 09:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the lack of edit summary. --Rob 09:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This change is quite reasonable, and I support it. --Rob 09:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Who adds these entries and why?

Who adds these entries and what merit do they have? Are they simply individual's whims or have they been voted on? --Mecanismo | Talk 00:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Blanking

This is a historical page, and as such should not be linked to in discussions. This prevents it from being used to vote in AFD, which is a discussion. By blanking it, it can't be cited in lieu of actual discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• What are you doing (especially considering there is an MfD underway) is a clear violation of WP:VAND. it is policy not blank pages because you disagree with the consensus which is clearly developing at the MfD in question to retain this page and it's contents.--Nicodemus75 07:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia [...] is not vandalism."

Many of the comments on the MFD are to treat this page as an archive and discourage its use in AFD. Blanking it retains the historical arguments (in the history, no less), while discouraging its use in AFD. Win win. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

To stave off any argument that it is no longer used in this way, it was cited as recently as a day and a half ago. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It is true that any good faith action is not vandalism. We say that, in part, so an innocent newbie, who blanks a page, doesn't get accused of being a vandal (they don't the rules). We also want people to do things they honestly think the community would support (e.g. things that further the goals of the project), but not be constrained by the technical written rules. You however, first tried to remove this with an out-of-process deletion. That failed, and you worked "within the rules" with an MfD. Everybody rejected your proposal, and then you blanked the page. You clearly knew what you were doing wasn't considered acceptable by the community, but did it anyhow. That's not good faith actions. Therefore, your blanking is vandalism. --Rob 15:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Really. There's no support for not using this on the MFD?

• If you ever see someone quoting one in a discussion, be sure to slap him about with a large trout.
• Personally I prefer to use 1000page+ Unix handbooks (for slapping), but other than that I agree with Cyde.
• Keep and tag as rejected to stop people from citing it as policy (which it is not). Seeing that some school inclusionists believe there is a conspiracy to delete all school articles on Wikipedia, this may need protection. If people continue to cite it, it can be reviewed again later, and I'll vote to delete.
• Kotepho's comment, which I can't copy here in a link

This needs to be kept as an archive, I understand that, but it needs not to be cited in AFD as though it were in any way binding policy, and it needs not to be cited in lieu of discussion, because AFD isn't a vote.

Also, Rob, you know what vandalism is, but in case you've forgotten, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia [...] is not vandalism." Please spare me the {{test}} templates for edits explained in the edit summary and on talk. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I was already well aware that good faith edits are never considered vandalism. I still consider your repeat page blanking to be blatant vadalism. --Rob 19:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Really. I don't suppose you could explain what bad-faith interest I have in this, instead of the good-faith reasoning I offered above? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that a "keep" position in the course of the MfD does not equal "blank the contents of the article". Your entire argument is specious in the extreme. When an overwhleming consensus in the MfD is to keep the page, that consensus is obviously talking about the content of the page. The MfD is not about a blank page, it is about the contents - blanking it as you have done is operating contrary to consensus and is frankly, not being done in good faith.--Nicodemus75 20:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Now would be a great time to stop. Everybody. Come back in 24h. Just zis Guy you know? 20:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

MfD Result Notice

This page was the subject of an MfD discussion closed on 1 August 2006. The result was Keep. Xoloz 15:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an essay

Or more precisely, this is four essays on one page (being somewhat non-literal). Hence, {{essay}} is appropriate. We have various essays, expressing various opinions, which aren't marked {{historical}}, even if they're quite old and quite stable. {{Historical}} is good for active proposals which become inactive (so user's don't waste time responding to something, nobody has remaining interest in). This was never a proposal. Of course, some people still choose to link to it, which is their choice. --Rob 23:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If this is going to be marked active, then there needs to be some venue to discuss points here. (I marked it {{historical}} because it pointed people to a now-defunct discussion in order to discuss any points.) Factual claims about many of these points, in all four sections, have been disputed. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Confusion

From what I can see, this essay only adds to the perennial confusion that was begun by user Jimbo's 2003 statement which he has now retracted in August 2011 as being no longer relevant. We are still none the wiser as to whether high schools should enjoy immunity for deletion or not. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)