Talk:Port Charlotte High School/Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Piratebannerpchs101.jpg

Image:Piratebannerpchs101.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Stub-Class Rating

Perhaps the rating of this artical should be re evaluated, it has been expanded in many ways since it was first rated. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I've removed the list of teachers and the whole section on the school cafe, both of which are inappropriate for a school article. From the information provided the article cannot be anything more than low importance at present and it barely qualifies as a start. Have a look at the WP Schools page for ideas on the type of content which should be included in school articles. Dahliarose (talk) 12:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

PCHS_logo.jpg

I don't quite understand why it is reverted whenever someone places one of our mascot images on this article. Am I missing something? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"Home of the Pirates"

In the introduction, it says "It is the home of the Pirates". Maybe this is something that is immediately obvious to everybody in the United States (though I doubt it), but it's so much Greek to me. What or who are "the Pirates"? I'm guessing some sort of sports team - please clarify in the article. --Bonadea (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • Point well taken, the "Pirate" is the mascot of PCHS, not just a sports team. Many schools, including ours, call them selves the home of their mascot, making PCHS the "Home of the Pirates", Charlotte High School (CHS) of Punta Gorda the "Home of the Fighting Tarpons", and Felix Varela Senior High School over in Miami the "Home of the Vipors". But as some people across the globe are probably not familiar with this, it's better to say "PCHS' mascot is the Pirate". Did that clear everything up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk • contribs) 04:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Clubs and activities

Why are the three clubs in the article right now (MUN, Key Club, and NJROTC) notable enough to have entire sections in this article? I believe that they aren't that much more notable than the rest of the school's organizations. If they are notable, then I think that their notability should be displayed through reliable sources beyond the school website. So a newspaper article (not a press release) of coverage of that organization, or something else to that extent. What are other thoughts on this? Metros (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• • I did not add the MUN and Key Club sections myself, they were already there. Because I feel that NJROTC is just as notable as the other clubs, I added that section. I think these groups have been mentioned in the newspaper before, I might be able to find one of those articles on the internet. Some other groups have been mentioned too, but I'll get to those later. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't find anything about key club, but I did find something about the NJROTC, check out http://www.cnet.navy.mil/cnet/pao/pr2002/02_031.pdf. I'm not done yet, if I find more, I'll post it here. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's an example of the NJROTC unit's reputation in the community, we were recognized in the newspaper: http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20060129/COLUMNIST68/601290525/0/section?CATEGORY=RSS GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's an example of the PCHS MUN performing at their best, it made it to the newspaper: http://www.sun-herald.com/CHNewsstory.cfm?pubdate=013107&story=ch4.htm&folder=NewsArchive2 GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Does the opinion of the Florida Department of Education interest you? If it does, go see what they think of the PCHS MUN at http://www.fldoe.org/successstories/2004/04-05.asp GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • http://www.publicschoolreview.com/school_ov/school_id/17252 says PCHS MUN and Band are among the nations best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk • contribs) 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
  • There's so many articles on the internet about these groups that it would take me an entire day to look them all up. Try searching for "Port Charlotte High School Model United Nations" at http://www.excite.com. Please also try searching for "Port Charlotte High School NJROTC", "Port Charlotte High School Naval Junior Reserve Officers Training Corp", and "Port Charlotte High School Key Club". You'll be shocked at the media play PCHS recieves. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please use a meta search engine like Excite or Dogpile because other search engines may not provide the same results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk • contribs) 20:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• • • This concludes my search for sources citing the notability of PCHS Key Club, MUN, and NJROTC. MUN and NJROTC are notable. Key Club may not be as notable. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Notable Alumni

Are college athletes at major universities notable alumni? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk • contribs) 01:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I would not imagine college atheletes could be considered notable alumnuses. They have not achieved anything "notable" except for being in college. Secondly, they are too recent of a graduate to be considered a notable graduate. Thirdly, unless they have achieved some wide level of "celebrity" or fame, they cannot be considered notable.

--216.229.227.141 (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you sir/mam. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The user above is correct. Being an collegiate athlete in and of itself is not notability. See Wikipedia:Notability for more on Notability. Calebrw (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Clean Up Tag

Does this article still require clean up, or is the clean up tag ready to be removed? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Behavioral policies

Would a section about the school's behavioral policies be appropriate? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No, unless they are unique or in some way notable. Calebrw (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Parent Reviews

Would it be NPOV to mention how PCHS has recieved more positive feedback at greatschools.net than CHS? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 21:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Help desk has stated that it would not be appropriate. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

(C/low) Normally, this would be B, but based on the sheer number of citations needed, I'm rating C. Calebrw (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Reassessing as (B/Low) after better completion of criterion 1, but I did find one that still needs to be addressed: the statement under Pride of Port Charlotte Bands "have consistently ranked among the top bands in the state of Florida for several years" is unclear; who did the ranking and what was the source? Note, Eóin brings up excellent points for improving the article even further: The Notable alumni/Notable teachers section is usually placed at the bottom: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. I also thought the History read a bit like a list of dates. It could include additional information about why the school was founded, or other unique events/conditions that have affected the school. Good luck, --Jh12 (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thrid opinion request

There seems to be some disagreement over whether or not to include some of the staff members in the Notable staff / faculty section. Any (appropriate) comments regarding the section are welcome. Please do not make any changes to the section (or the related mentions in the opening paragraph) without first discussing here. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a WP:WEIGHT matter. We don't need to have "a random teacher killed himself" placed in the lead. Further, it's a WP:BLP issue without a citation directly following, even if there is a citation is located further down. The WP:LEAD is supposed to be a summary of the article; this teacher is not terribly important to the school as a whole, is he? --Izno (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be a good question for the person that addedd him in the first place. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, on further thought, that section should probably be removed. It lists nothing of terrible import. I'm also not in favor of having a section on notable alumni (via WP:TRIVIAL... sortof), but I understand that at least to be the norm. --Izno (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I saw this listed on the third opinion list, and took a look. In my opinion the guiding policies here are WP:1E and WP:NPF (both part of the WP:BLP policy. In this case, none of these individuals would seem to meet the notability guidelines for people, and as such, given that their only major claim to notability is through single events which do not seem to be relatively significant, in my opinion this should be removed.

I have removed the WP:3 tag from the section, but will leave any further changes for you to make pending discussion. PGWG (talk) 18:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)