Talk:The Hill School

Advertisement template

Would the editor who posted the advertisement template please be specific. Thank you.Nancyhmarshall (talk) 22:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

That would be Andymii, although I would have thought it was pretty self-explanatory, current article reads like a promo brochure for the school. Talking about how the founding of the school was unique and rare, the in-depth descriptions of stuff like the closing ceremony, the dress code, the motto/honor code, etc. etc. It's not surprising when 12 of the 14 references are not independent. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with onel5969's assessment. The article uses excessively flowery, non-encyclopedic verbiage and lacks a neutral point of view. The School Life and Academic Structure sections are entirely unreferenced, and reads more like a promotional ad for the school than an encyclopedia entry.NotaBene 鹰百利 ^Talk 00:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Some of the flowery language can be removed, without affecting the content. In addition, there is significant negative coverage and controversies/scandals regarding the school which must be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.0.25 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Deleting material

Please could it be refrained from deleting content on the school. Comments such as "this is not the school's page" is not useful at all, since in fact it is a article about a well known school, and one in which there is much published literature about which has not been well organised in the past. If you look at comparable pages, say Lawrenceville School or Phillips Academy there is quite detailed description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.0.25 (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I have to say that it looks like you are being disruptive. Wikipedia does have rules, and we hope that you'll follow them. There is no ownership of articles, please respect your fellow editors and explain what edits you'd like to make and why. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not feel that I am being disruptive at all. I have removed quite a bit of flowery language, have conducted research on this topic, but my edits have been continuously reverted without explanation or with a poor one that makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.0.25 (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Smallbones, please refrain from mass-deletion of sourced material without comment and baseless attacks on fellow editors. This sort of behavior has become far too common among frequent editors such as yourself. Please leave descriptions of your edits and discuss matters that might be controversial on the talk page. Enon (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

discuss the content, not the editor. John from Idegon (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You did not provide any reason for reverting, nor did Smallbones. If you think the sources are insufficient, say which ones and why. Note that "verifiable" doesn't have to mean "verified" in all instances, particularly adding first-draft material to an article when there is no controversy, just put in a "citation needed". You can edit specific parts without wholesale deletion. My reversion edit has a substantive reason on it: it makes the article better in my opinion and that of the editor who spent time adding that material. You also reverted a perfectly innocuous edit with a source, giving the year the school became coeducational. That was petty, against WP policy and a perfect example of the sort of editing that drives away good people. Enon (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

My only reason for getting involved here was that I saw an anon edit warring with a respected editor to put in poorly written and poorly referenced material. In short, I think the anon was being pretty pushy. Please reread his comment at the top of this section. It's a claim of ownership or at least "you have to do it my way." The comparison to Lawrenceville School which he suggested is informative - please look at that article. It has well written, well referenced sections on the same general topics in about half the space. @Enon: If you want to write and reference the sections, please do, but please self-revert if you don't want to rewrite it. I certainly wouldn't want to be responsible for inserting that material. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

The content being added is pure crap. It's unsourced, promo in tone and mentioning achievement that we wouldn't include even with a sterling source. And if you call one of my edits vandalism again I will see you blocked for it. Great way to foster productive discussion. There is no consensus to include any of the content, altho I do not have a problem with the bit on going coed in its proper place. This isn't the school's page, and the unsourced out of guideline info added to the edit note that clearly indicates the IP shares the not uncommon delusion that this page is somehow FOR the school rather than about it. All this makes me wonder what the motivation of an editor with 6 years experience whom I've never ever encountered at any other school article is to be getting so bent over this article? Is this your alma mater? John from Idegon (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

"Pure crap"? What exactly is the "crap" here? The year the school became coed? Details of the creation of an innovative early childhood program? Championships in soccer, football, swimming and lacrosse? Details about facilities? I'm calling bullshit here; This is bullying, plain and simple. If you have an issue with sourcing, either tag it or add better sources. It's time to stop edit warring and start trying to work with newer editors to improve articles, not to bite their heads off with patently false claims. Alansohn (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Your tone here seems to not be assuming good faith, which I have, and I believe the anonymous editor does as well. While you object to my edit description, I object to your phrasing: "Pure crap", and with respect to your threat to block me (for objecting to what would not be allowed from an anonymous editor) I think I am not alone in my opinion that is not quite how an administrator* should comport himself. I'm not sure who you're talking about with "six years experience" (I have close to double that), but as for me, I came to this page to find out when Hill School went co-ed; I had been thinking about my time at Lawrenceville first form back when it was all-boys and Hill was one of the schools which I had earlier visited when deciding on a school. I'm not "getting so bent over this article", but the character of the edits throughout WP over the past few years -- particularly the mass deletions -- of the apparent cliques, of gratuitous insults by those who seem to consider themselves in a group above regular editors, the endless wiki-lawyering, the whole tone that WP has acquired. I'm not speaking of you in that last sentence, if you are opposed to these problems I invite you to help remedy them. *[Edit: not an admin, but a user with special rights]Enon (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Enon and John from Idegon: Please slow down and initiate Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. TheDragonFire (talk) 07:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Interested to learn why you believe this page is not the school's page. There is plenty of negative coverage of the school as well, such as the sexual abuse case which should definitely be included. In addition, some of the alumni's description of the culture at the school has been described as unpleasant. I have tried to add some of this information, however I strongly encourage the research of the storied history of the school, both good and bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.0.25 (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Why were some sections split off?

May I ask why History of The Hill School, Campus of The Hill School, List of headmasters of The Hill School, Traditions of The Hill School, and Hill School Blues were split from this article? None of them are notable; according to Wikipedia:Notablity, "if a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." Additionally, if actually look at the articles, they seem almost promotional. All other schools manage to comfortably fit all their info on a single page, so this feel like overkill. Does anyone else think these sub articles should be remerged with the main school article? --Andymii (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Right I can answer some of your questions.

1. Not all schools are able to manage to fit into one article, and there is precedence for similar actions. For example, see pages Traditions of Texas A&M University, History of Cornell University, List of headmasters at Bristol Grammar School, etc. So while I understand your concern and agree that it is in good faith, it is not unique for this page to be split up.

2. There is too much intricate detail to be addressed in one page, as the warning on the front page shows. If we were to revert back to the way the page was before it was split up, then it would be extremely long and unwieldy.

3. The notability criteria you cited is for companies, and we are dealing with a non-profit school not a for-profit company. In any case, since it would be extremely unwieldy it would be unwise to merge them together.

4. I disagree that the information posted is promotional. Yes, there is some flowery language but most has been removed. If you were the administrators of this school, would you post historical facts about how students were frequently beaten? Or about a smoking club? . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyungjoo98 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

1. Texas A&M and Cornell are institutions of higher education, not secondary schools. While Bristol Grammar does not necessarily deserve a page, its existence does not mean Hill does too. This is not a matter of uniqueness; it is a matter of appropriateness. I find the Hill is scarcely notable enough for splintering to this scale. Note WP:SIZESPLIT.

2. I would like to say that the main article is scarcely long enough for splintering. In fact, most of the size is due to poor formatting and frankly unencyclopedic and superfluous material. The school does not need this splintering. I see it as a Hill School student wishing to pomp up their alma mater by giving it more articles.

3. I view notability of the splintering of school articles as relative to the notability of the school itself. The Hill School is not notable enough.

4. Yes, most of it seems like its been copied and pasted off the school website. Before I deleted it, it listed the languages offered, where they were taught, and whether they were discontinued. The content aside, it seems like the existence of the articles is promotional. That they are only extant for the sole purpose of making the school seem more significant and prestigious than it is.

I suggest you, instead of forcing people to undergo the long and burdensome process of nomination for deletion, tag them for speedy deletion yourself as the creator. The articles have no right to exist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphalfalfa (talk • contribs)

List of Headmasters

The list currently does not pass WP:V. Even if we do find verification for the list, I believe it is trivial information that does not belong here as per WP:DIR. It is not standard practice here to list historical principals of high schools.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Rusf10, while you are correct in that it needs to be sourced, I'm guessing it easily can be. While this article is a highly padded overblown page largely only of interest to students and alumni and way too heavily sourced to connected sources, on this one narrow point, I disagree. Lists of heads of a school are endorsed content in the school article guidelines, and are commonly found on private schools, and frequently on public schools. John from Idegon (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

John from IdegonThat makes sense for colleges/universities (which have a much higher level of notability). I haven't seen anything that says it should apply to secondary/high schools.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The blue words are links, Rusf10. John from Idegon (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Didn't know, well, I guess you learn something new everyday! But seriously though, that is an essay, I just don't see the value of having lists of heads for anything below college level. I believe the policy WP:NOTDIR which is also linked in that essay (and therefore confusing) applies here.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Archiving

There was a five year break in talk page discussion between 2010 and 2016, so I've archived everything prior to 2016 manually. If someone wants to set up automatic archiving, I have no objection. I don't do well with automation, so I'll leave that for someone who does it well. John from Idegon (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)