Talk:Academies at Englewood

Awards, Rankings

The description of the school's opportunities and courses is necessary, and the section for awards and rankings is also necessary. It is important to include all aspects of a subject in an encyclopedia, including the subjects awards and distinctions (if any). Other institution pages also have an awards and rankings section. It is also important to add descriptions and views on the subject from the media and news reporting, such as NYT (if any). We should bring back the earlier changes. Aminsi22 (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article, not an extension of the school's promotional materials or academic catalog. I don't mind some of the disputed content but much of it is overly detailed, promotional, or both. The awards and rankings section should be kept, but the article needs to be limited to the essential information that readers need to know about this subject. :Additionally, new editors are asked to review important Wikipedia policies and practices especially our ideal to maintain a neutral point of view, recommendation to not edit an article if you have a conflict-of-interest, prohibition against editing an article if you have an undeclared paid relationship with the subject, and advice for articles about schools. ElKevbo (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the awards and distinctions section should be kept, as it is a notable aspect of the school and features in the media should be acknowledged. It should be brought back. The specific distinctions are informative and are encyclopedic, it is a necessary part of an article on a notable school. While the content should not be promotional, it should cover all aspects of the school. As Aminsi22 noted, other school articles also have an awards and rankings section. Minitena22 (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

It is necessary to include the awards and rankings section in my opinion, so I vote for it to be brought back. Encyclopedic content encompasses all verifiable aspects of a subject. Pmmp1234 (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

No, "encyclopedic content" most certainly does not "encompass all verifiable aspects of a subject." ElKevbo (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. Upon above consensus on bringing the awards section back, while at the same time reducing the promotional tone and making it sound less like an advertisement, I will work on revising the awards sections to fit both of these needs. I will include the distinctions and rankings in such a way that does not sound promotional. Aminsi22 (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Two (now blocked) sock-puppets agreeing with you is not consensus. The content you keep adding belongs on the schools own website and not here - it is promotional, not neutrally written, and not encyclopaedic. Melcous (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, make that three sock-puppets - the above comments agreeing on the content being included are from three editors who have now all been blocked as a CheckUser confirmed they are the same. I have removed the disputed content. Melcous (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry Aminsi22, you do not have a consensus for anything. I'd propose the following:

1. Any awards discussed must be notable.
2. Outside of the USNWR ranking, it's not necessary to discuss anything other than a top ranking.
3. All content must be paraphrased from reliable secondary sources and those sources must be cited. Simply, if all you have is an entry on the award givers website, that isn't sufficient indication of the encyclopedic nature of the content.

Also, please be advised that discussions on this page only apply to this article. Content that may or may not be in other articles is not relevant to the content of this article. See WP:OSE. 75.174.138.211 (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Reminder about using multiple accounts and canvassing

This is a friendly reminder to all new editors that using multiple accounts to edit is generally prohibited especially when it's done to deceive or mislead other editors (e.g., create the false impression that other editors share your viewpoint). Recruiting other people to join Wikipedia or a specific discussion solely to agree with and support you is also prohibited. ElKevbo (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not have multiple wikipedia accounts, and did not recruit others to share my viewpoint. I am sure the views expressed are their own. Aminsi22 (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I do not have a connection with Aminsi22. Just because we are editing the same wikipedia article and agreeing on one edit does not mean we have connection. I am expressing my own views on the subject.Pmmp1234 (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

What is an Academy Description

Before the description of each individual academy, should we include this?:

Applicants are required to select an academy concentration for the entirety of their four years in the high school.[5] Once students are accepted, transfers are not permitted. The five academies allow students to take specialized professional courses alongside core academic classes in mathematics, science, English, history, health, and electives.[6] The professional courses introduce students to in-depth topics in a specific field of study. Each academy also has its own set of professional and career-technical education opportunities, such as affiliations with research programs and hospitals, college-level courses in the field of study, and various career exploration sessions.[7] The five academies are as follows:

It will inform the reader of what an academy is in this context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.64.54 (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2021

Change "Dilly Gillespie Auditorium" to "Dizzy Gillespie Auditorium" and the link "Dilly Gillespie" to "Dizzy Gillespie" 135.180.82.186 (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. ElKevbo (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)