Talk:Gateway High School (Colorado)

Removed 'citations needed' tag

Not sure why a 'citations needed' tag was added in the first place - much of the 'uncited' content (which was not noted by the person who placed the tag' consists of material that likely has an offline citation. The bulk of the article is appropriately cited, and the uncited material falls well under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Offline_sources and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith.

Seeing as how the issue has beed suitable addressed per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Maintenance_template_removal, the citations needed tag has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.75.239.15 (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Removing COI tag unless tagging editor chimes in

Per the template help page: "For example: Neutrality-related templates such as {{COI}} (associated with the conflict of interest guideline) or {{POV}} (associated with the neutral point of view policy) strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed;

I absolutely did say "learn more about the school, edit less until you do." This was after two major factual errors were introduced to the page in one day by this editor - mislabeling the school colors, and conflating a percussion ensemble's performances with two different schools in different parts of the country. The fact that I attended Gateway, eons ago, is not a conflict of interest - I sort of hate that crappy school, in fact - but it does put me in a position to observe the most basic and egregious factual errors being introduced by the tagging editor. Tagging editor is making light-speed changes with little or no verification of their links, is engaging in edit wars over their perceptions of notability, and now is apparently playing rules-lawyer games because they don't like having been called out for their shoddy and inaccurate edits.

Anyways, per the template, if the tagging editor doesn't chime in, and if nobody else cares, I'll nuke the tag, or maybe somebody else can do it. I regret the personal attacks, but again, it baffles me why somebody would be so *insistent* in their error and personal biases. 38.75.239.15 (talk) 04:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Alright, fair, I didn't realize you were referring to edits earlier than the recent ones when saying "learn more about the school."

I am insistent in improving the article, nothing more. You have not really given a reason as to why the band state finals should be included until mentioning WP:NNC, and it does not relate to what you are trying to accomplish (and I guess it kinda has to do about what I'm saying, since I'm arguing the top X number of schools in the state thing should be applied mostly regardless of the activity, but this is more of a notability thing). If you gave some sort of reasoning, I would not have reverted it so quickly, but I do not believe any relevant reasoning has been given. The process of making it to finals is mostly trivial (I say mostly because if participation is entirely open, like say with BOAs, participation in an event would be unnotable), and arguing WP:NNC is also arguing that balance and due weight should be based on process (i.e., all finals that required competitive processes to qualify are notable).

Perhaps I was editing too quickly, however. I edit in great breadth (hence me editing a Colorado school when I live across the country), and since the vast majority of articles have no active watchers, it would be pointless to edit in discussion, but of course that shouldn't apply when someone is active, as is the case here. Regardless, your reverts went mostly unjustified. However, if you are willing to discuss, I would be willing to remove the template, considering I only have one concern, about the state finals thing (and the COI template should not be used merely because someone is affiliated or closely connected, but rather because of the consequence of such). While there are still a number of edit summaries that point to bias, I believe that bias is not a problem under the premise of constructive discussion. Also, I will refrain from edit warring—we can always reach out to third parties such as Teahouse if need be. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

And to be clear, I do still believe you are being biased. Even on my talk page, you use "expertise", which does not apply to anything except the concert vs marching percussion thing, something that I have not at all went against, considering how vague the score sheets were in early years. Close connection rarely equates to more validity, and constantly bringing up your close connection to the school, especially calling it expertise in ways that do not relate to the topic, is biased. Though like I said, I am willing to remove the template even with the template if you are willing to discuss, since the template should only be used practically for when it is needed. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

You done? I'm trying to reply but I keep hitting edit conflicts. 38.75.239.15 (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, I'm done after this, sorry I have a habit of adding on to things.

I realize I was being stupid, I read WP:NNC and "due weight" together, and assumed NNC dealt with due weight, despite having clicked your reference and read it. Not that notability does not apply. It still does, and if anything the idea of notability gives editors of school articles more leeway when editing. Mostly everything, and certainly everything related to extracurriculars, still needs secondary reliable sources. Notablity is just for when secondary reliable resources are not being used. For example, if I'm not mistaken, WGI does not use secondary reliable sources, but it goes without saying that winning the WGI World Championship is notable, and does not need a newspaper article or something of the like. Also, see WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#OS: "Mention the sports team(s) of the school and what is notable about them. Here is also a good place to mention specific traditions of the school that have received coverage in secondary sources, like students' union/student council activities, a student newspaper, clubs, regular activities, etc." Safe to assume the "notability" thing applies not just to sports, but also to extracurriculars, though notability in this case is an option, not a restriction (and to be clear, the "mention the sports teams" thing would not translate to extracurriculars, see the sentence right above the Extracirricular activities section of that section. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 05:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

So let's have the convo. To make CBA finals (then as now) was not a 'mostly trivial' process, nor was it 'entirely open'. The process was: bands competed in multiple regional competitions throughout the fall, earning points assigned by third-party judges. To qualify for quarterfinals, bands needed a sufficient number of performances, and a sufficient number of points earned in those performances, to make it in. At quarterfinals, only the top-five ranked bands were allowed to go on to finals. The process was very similar to what sports teams have to do - play a sufficient number of games, and win enough of those games (through points) to earn a spot in the playoffs, where they then have to outcompete other teams to earn a spot in the finals. The only material difference is the source of the points - for sports, the points come on the field, for band, the points were assessed by judges. The process is not at all open, and definitely not trivial - earning a slot at finals was an effort that took an entire season of success (or in this case, *nine of them), just like in sports. Because of that, balance and weight under WP:NNC seem appropriate here.

As to 'secondary reliable sources' - this content would have been 'sourced' more than thirty years ago. I absolutely believe that CBA has records of their winners going back to the invention of the drum and bugle, but they don't publish that content online. And you have a remarkably narrow take on primary sources - for things like 'simple statement of fact', primary sources are fine per WP:PRIMARY CBA stating who made it into quarterfinals and finals would be a simple statement of fact, and for content that occurred eons ago, WP:OFFLINE seems germane. If you're saying somebody needs to go to the Aurora Public Library and scan the microfiche to get page-four articles about how Gateway made state finals in band for the seventh time, buddy, I can do it, but I'm gonna be mad about it again. WP:AGF is relevant

Your call on the bias tag - from my standpoint, you've made repeated removals of content based on an incomplete understanding of the process re: notability, and you're playing hardball with sourcing for three-decade-old material. I don't think my being familiar with the process is bias, is all, but if you wanna call in a buddy, fine by me. 38.75.239.15 (talk) 05:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The process is irrelevant. I am making the argument that only the top two or so bands have made notable achievments. I repeat that WP:NNC does not apply, as I am arguing that notability should only be considered as an option, not a restriction (i.e., just because something is not notable does not necessarily mean it should not be included). It needs reliable secondary primary sources regardless of any notability policy. WP:PRIMARY may apply here, but I do not think so. Primary sources can indeed be reliable, but in this case at least, it does not prove whether it should be included. Note what I said about WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#OS: reliable secondary sources should be used to prove notability. Though as I've said, there can be exceptions when an achivement is notable in itself, such as being a state champion or WGI world champion.

While it might seem that WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#OS violates WP:NNC, NNC clearly says there are exceptions when needed. For example, an article on a city shouldn't list every single political position. There must be exceptions to NNC, as it itself says. NNC applies to something like, say, the cirriculum structure of the school. However, when it comes to achivements, NNC will make exceptions for WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#OS. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I guess the relevant question is: does this still warrant a COI flag? We've already decided that notability is not a restriction, and if you were presented with secondary sources (ignoring WP:OFFLINE and WP:AGF) you'd be fine with the inclusion? Therefore the tag isn't really needed, because it's not germane? 38.75.239.15 (talk) 06:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok yeah, that's not needed now, I will remove it. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Band state finalists

I requested to discuss the band finalists thing. The silence gave me the impression that a proper citation would be given to prove notability. However, it has been some time without fixing the issue. I have removed the improperly referenced section. This issue happened a long time ago, but I believe the the user insisting it be added seems to value the fact that the content has been on Wikipedia for a long time, and explicitly showed bias by saying that a great achivement should not be removed. To that, I say, Wikipedia does not value a sense of "taking away greatness" or removing content that has been on for a long time in of itself, and especially does not value such qualities over properly citing sources. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. You can re-add the content after sourcing it properly, but it should not be left up when it does not have proper basis to be included.

If there is still an issue with whether the content is properly cited, we can discuss. Otherwise, a citation is needed before including the information. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Go read WP:Offline and tell me why you don't think there are sources for these 30-year-old events just because you can't find them online. 38.75.239.15 (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:OFFLINE is irrelevant. The source used is an online one. Also, do not accuse me of vandalization when you failed to either make necessary changes or discuss what issues you have with my argument, only focusing on whether the template should remain. I removed the content due to the lack of an attempt to resolve the issue on your side, but if you are willing to discuss, I will refrain from removing the content, as the precedent should generally be temporarily upheld when a conflict emerges (in this case, the content was there before the conflict). TheGEICOgecko (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Explain how WP:OFFLINE is irrelevant for finalist documentation that predates widespread use of the internet.

And, like I said, there are print copies somewhere that document this. I don’t have all summer to mess up Wikipedia pages like some, but I will find the time to run down a proper citation and reference for these offline sources. In the meantime, I suggest you actually go read WP:OFFLINE, in particular, the part where it says ‘don’t remove content just because you can’t find an online source’, recency bias, and the part about WP:AGF as well.

I’m on travel this weekend, and will try to get a source *you* like sometime next week. In the meantime, the cited content conforms and should not be removed. 2600:1014:B1A2:4ABB:8085:5E75:2202:49BD (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The source currently used is online. Do I need to explain why WP:OFFLINE doesn't apply to online content? If you know of an offline source you wanna reference, then do it, WP:OFFLINE is a common sense premise that I have never argued against. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, yeah you do need to explain why WP:OFFLINE doesn’t apply, especially since you *still haven’t read it.* The source used has scores, and if *you’d read it*, contact information for older scores not found in their online recaps. You know, *offline sources*.

Also, go read WP:AGF. And then reconsider why you have an interest in ‘maintaining’ these pages at all, when you don’t have any actual content knowledge about the subjects you’re editing. Given the egregious editing errors you’ve made on this page, I weep for the other pages you’ve edited. 63.145.141.2 (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, and it seems you have yet to fully read my replies, considering you keep obsessing over this one irrelevant essay. I have not once brought up any concerns over whether or not something is online or offline, and as a matter of fact I expressed explicit approval in the message you most recently replied to. I haven't read WP:OFFLINE because I have no objections to anything related to anything being offline. I'm merely asking the proper source to be cited, and the current one does not work because it doesn't prove notability. If you're trying to make a made up conflict or avoid my real objection, please don't. WP:OFFLINE is entirely irrelevant because we both agree: I have never expressed concern over the matter, do not act like I have done otherwise. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:AGF has nothing to do with maintaining pages to the extent that the right thing to do has nothing to do about one's good faith. And I find it ironic that the person that thought a tweet was a good source to use is the one telling others that they have made egregious errors, and also considering you're still citing your first hand experience in relation to the school as a credential to knowing how Wikipedia rules apply to the school's article. This is an encyclopedia. Your relation to the school does not change how the rules of citing sources and only including encyclopedic information apply. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, whatever. I see we're back on the 'notability' track again.

I don't think you'll ever be convinced, because you just don't think band is notable. Delete it again, and I'll apply your rule to all the other content on the page. Making one football final, for one division level, in a half century (and getting blown out) isn't notable. The basketball team making quarterfinals, once (and by the way, where's the impetus for not removing that content) isn't notable. There's been no citation, ever, for the choir finals, and I can't find any evidence they even *made* finals, for that matter. Why haven't you removed that content? While we're at it, essentially nobody knows what WGI is, or why percussion ensembles play during a *color guard* event. So who cares that Gateway won two world titles in a contest that nobody's heard of - is that even notable?

What I object to is your uneven application of your only-in-your-head 'rules' (which, by the way, bear only scant resemblance to how encyclopedic information is gathered. For one, it's usually gathered by people with more than a passing familiarity with the topic, which you utterly lack for the pages you edit.) Really, nothing Gateway has ever done has been 'notable' - but you focus only on marching band for some reason. Really, I think you've made this a personal thing. You don't like that I disagree with your uneven take on what 'notable' is, and you *really* don't like that I pointed out several glaring errors in your edits. You got the *school colors* wrong, and can't tell one Gateway in Colorado from another Gateway in Illinois. And *you're* going to be the final judge on what content is notable or worthy for this page? Get real.

Regardless, I'll be here to revert any unwarranted future edits you make. I'll also have proper paper citations documenting Gateway was a finalist for the years noted. Eventually, you'll find a different hobby, and this page will be the same. 38.75.239.15 (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

You can't compare band finals and football finals, because one has 8+ teams compete, and the other has two. I'm not saying band achievments isn't notable, simply that placing 8th place in state–in anything–isn't. I disagree with the basketball one too, but it's already enough of a headache dealing with the band thing, and at least it's not as unnotable as the band thing. The choir one says champions, not finals: I generally do not remove content just because there is not citation, please do not stubbornly and unconstructively ignore and avoid the reason I have an issue with the band one. WGI is one of the most notable competitions for anything music wise in the country, so it goes without question that it is notable to include a primary source of that: additionally, WGI has it's own Wikipedia page, so that's clear proof it is notable, albeit obviously not every award WGI gives is.

If you do not desire to make an honest argument, repeadedly pretending like none of the things I say exist, I will enforce what I am doing. You are making a dishonest, anti-constructive argument right now. I didn't add school colors, and please do not bring up that extremely biased point of me not being familiar with your alumni school. It is very often the case that Wikipedia editors edit in areas they are familiar with, and there is nothing wrong with that, as long as we apply the rules correctly. You, on the other hand, refuse to do so, and I see you have also reverted back to, if not attakcs, personal micro-aggressions about how I spend my time, ironically right after claiming I have made a distant school in Colorado a personal issue. It should go without saying that making sure policies and guidelines are followed isn't a personal issue, it's what editors consistently strive towards, which means keeping others in check.

I do appreciate you taking the initiative to get paper citations. Before you spend your time on that, remember that the purpose of the source is to prove notability. So say, the paper records from the competition holder itself does not do anything different from the online source. But say, an impartial book or something would. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Basketball quarterfinals are top-eight - if they were top-four, they'd be semifinals. Why didn't you delete basketball the same day you deleted band the first time?

And again, top eight is notable in my view. More bands compete for those top eight spots than they allow football teams into the football playoffs, so it's, I'd say, more notable than the football team GTHBO of them during one lucky shot at the 'finals' one year out of fifty.

If you'd like me to link the edit history where you changed the school colors to orange and black, I'll be happy to do so. They were orange and yellow for twenty years before black was added in the nineties. If you'd done even more than the most passing research, you might have read that somewhere.

You are making too-quick edits without context, and those edits aren't of value. I've got updated band finals notifications, and will cite them later this week. If you remove them as finalists, I will restore them. 38.75.239.15 (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

In the interest of being a nice guy, here's some of my logic as to why a final-8 finals for performing arts is just as notable as a final-2 finals for sports. Because the final-2 finals is purely feature of how sports is judged, as a head-to-head sport, and it's sub-optimal in choosing the 'best', as it turns out.

We can argue about whether quarterfinals or semifinals are 'notable', but really, they're only needed when it's impossible to compare eight teams at the same time - we have to make them play head-to-head, and that, as you must agree, is sub-optimal. How many times has an NFC or AFC 'champion' made the Super Bowl, only to get blown out by their opponent, and how many times would that team's opposition in their NFC or AFC championship game been a better contender in the Super Bowl? It's happened several times in the last decade. Using a college analogy, how many SEC teams should qualify for the natty, but don't, because of the way the playoffs are set up? How many 'circles of suck' where team A beats team B, team B beats team C, and then team C beats team A come up in head-to-head rankings? Who's the best team - A, B, or C? They all beat each other, after all.

To win a football 'final' from the quarterfinals bracket, you only need to beat three teams - one at the quarterfinals level, another at the semifinals, and the team that made finals. The selection of those three teams are dictated by bracketing rankings that are sometimes arbitrary and often not at all related to performance - the survivor of a stacked division playing the luckiest weakling from a terrible one, for example, when everybody from the stacked division is, in fact, a better team than the lucky weakling. In a finals-2 final, you only have to play and beat those three, sometimes arbitrarily chosen teams of the eight qualifying teams to win it all. In reality, a true 'champion' would be able to demonstrate that they were able to beat *all seven* of the other qualifying teams.

Which is, as it turns out, exactly how performing arts competitions are run. Because it's possible to judge eight different ensembles in one sitting, that's exactly what they do. Sports doesn't let you do that (although I'd pay real money to watch a football game with eight teams playing at once, lol) but you *can* with performing arts. And, critically, *all eight qualifying ensembles* have the ability to take the top spot. Whoever wins first place in a final-8 finals has, empirically, bested *all seven* of their other competitors. The third-place finisher has beaten the other *five*, live and in real time. The *fifth place* ensemble has beaten as many of their competitors (three) in a final-8 finals as the *first place* competitor has in a finals-2 competition.

Since we appear to need to be coming to some sort of resolution, I'll say this - top eight should count, but if it doesn't, at least top five should, because to make top five out of a top eight one-off competition, you have to beat as many 'teams' as you do to win a top eight bracket.

If you're good with that, I'll document all top-five-or-better finishes by the band, nuke the other ones, and we can go in peace. 38.75.239.15 (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok that basketball one is just me being dumb, yes there's eight, and now I'm at the point where I would like to delete that too.

I do not remember changing them, if I did change it I cannot think of any legit reason to change them, and will not interfere with the school colors in any way I cannot confidently do. I do believe I removed the wiki links to the school colors, to comply with MOS:OL. Perhaps I made an error in doing so?

The line where an achivement is notable in itself is fairly blurred. I know one of the WikiProject coordinators believes it to be around top 2 in the state, and if I remember correctly they also said that it was a general consensus to be top 2 in the state (although I have not seen this general consensus myself). I think I'd say top three in some cases. I do agree with you that it does depend to some extent on the context of "head-to-head"ness. For example, Science Olympiad would be more notable to include 3rd than a placing 3rd in a sport of similar notability as SO. But the number of teams in a match is mostly determined by the nature of the competition, so it would only be more or less notable relative to how news media generally percieves it. Although, I disagree with your idea that Wikipedia should base the definition of a notable achivement on whether or not a team "deserves" to excel. Notability, it seems, is a practical definition. The reason secondary sources do not need to prove notability with things like WGI World Championships is because it is so outstanding an achivement, it cannot be denied that it is notable. I believe that is to the extent we should define an achivement is notable in itself–when it can be determined with enough confidence (whatever that may entail) that an achievment is more extraordinary than other achievements that would very likely recieve secondary coverage.

Although I guess at the end of the day, the placements we argue for is fairly arbitary. Believe it or not, there actually is not any advice or guidelines that talks about this, at least not to my knowledge. For all I know the idea of an inherently notable achivement is faulty, or maybe we're both being too restrictive with our definition. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I'm gonna bring this up in Teahouse. I deal with notability issues often considering I edit broadly over articles of multiple states, it would definitely be helpful, at least for me, to settle this for future reference. Feel free to join if you want [1]. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I think I've said my piece. If you really need a third party to see if you're justified in removing longstanding content or not, based on what you now realize is an incomplete stance on what notability is or isn't, I think you know the answer and just don't want to admit it to yourself.

I used to have a Wikipedia account. I don't use it anymore, because I realized when I did, I was editing for *my* glory, and not necessarily for the best interest of the page. As I grew and matured, I realized the arrogance of my ways - the sheer chutzpah of being the arbiter over content I had only marginal knowledge of. I don't think I ever rose to the heights of wanting to be the avatar for all high school pages in the country, barging onto quasi-active pages and rearranging them without even a notion of consultation with the page's editors before making sweeping changes, but it was probably pretty close.

Anyways, go see if other people agree with you or not. The generation that created Wikipedia (mine) has largely abandoned it, because of dumb, pedantic squabbles like the one you've created. Soon enough, some random vandal will make a dick joke in the sidebar, and it'll be a week before anybody notices. Eventually, you'll (maybe) feel fairly cringey for making this thing a months-long fight over the most trivial of edits. And someday, I'll put the page back to its previous level of content, and you won't notice, because you'll either be off on some other Quixotic quest, or you'll have grown up.

Christ, I wish I had. What a dumb conversation this has been. 38.75.239.15 (talk) 06:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Dude, it's not that deep. And you realize you just called a significant percentage of Wikipedia editors childish and arrogant for desiring to improve Wikipedia in the way you described? If you don't want to edit articles you're not familiar with, fine, but don't pretend like you're all high and mighty for refusing to improve more articles. Also, I have tolerated your ad hominem attacks way more than I should. If you keep making attempts to insult me and belittle my editing, I will report you. And for your information, I plan on keeping this page in my watchlist. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)