Talk:Steinbrenner High School

Extracurriculars/Sports

When Tedder edited and wikified this article per WP:WPSCH/AG, extracurriculars and the band section were removed. This policy states:

Extracurricular activities — 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 school, like students' union/student council activities, a student newspaper, clubs, regular activities, etc. The heading may be changed accordingly in regard to the importance of sports, clubs, traditions, students' unions etc. For example, alternative headings could be Students' Union, Sports and Traditions or Students' Union Activities. Mention significant championships for the sports teams. Specific students should not be mentioned unless they are notable in their own right.

There were no in-depth mentions of any extracurriculars, only brief overviews on the sports. Why were these removed? Could the sports mention and Marching Warrior Brigade section be restored? I don't see how they are out of policy. --Abcorn (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• wp:edit summary has the answer
• What change are you proposing? I oppose restoration of the content as it was: it was a mass of unsourced chatter.- Sinneed 04:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• I am not proposing that all of the edits be reverted, I am simply proposing that the sections about sports and the band and such be restored. I don't exactly think that it was a "mass of unsourced chatter". If you want references cited, then we can do that. If we cite sources, then there is no problem with the information, right?
• Is there any problem with getting information straight from the source? For example, if a band member wrote a section about the band, does it really still need to be cited? That person would already know everything they need to know.
• My policy about Wikipedia is this: Wikipedia should be filled with information. That's the point of an encyclopedia. I see no need to remove perfectly good information just because it might potentially violate one of the many policies. It's still information that someone might potentially need. --Abcorn (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• A good bit of basic information about the activities appears on the school website, and can be used very carefully under wp:SELFPUB... information about the school and its organizations, but not about its members, other schools, for example...- Sinneed 21:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• "Is there any problem with getting information straight from the source?" - yes, that is the definition of wp:Original Research. The wp:five pillars that WP stands on include wp:no original research. WP contains information summarized from published, generally wp:reliable sources that are wp:verifiable. Anything not already in such sources, that belongs on the web, belongs on some other web site. Perhaps blogs, personal websites, organization websites, etc. Where appropriate, those can be included in the article as wp:external links, even though their content cannot *generally* be used in the article. SELFPUB gives examples, and there are special cases... those are what consensus is for.- Sinneed 21:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
• For content that really does belong in the encyclopedia but breaks some rule, proponent(s) gather wp:consensus, and decide to over-ride the rule. This might be done by following wp:dispute resolution... maybe a wp:request for comment. I hope that helps.- Sinneed 21:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)