Talk:St. Mary's School, Mumbai

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, given uncontested objections (distinct topics) and no support. Klbrain (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

---

@The Banner, Jzsj, and PseudoSkull: I propose to merge St. Mary's High School SSC into St. Mary's School, Mumbai (ICSE). The former is a junior secondary school (SSC) and the latter is a senior secondary school (ICSE). In all other respects, they are the same school, founded in the same year and run by the Jesuits. I draw your attention to the following quote, sourced from the Mumbai Jesuits website:

St. Mary’s School, a minority (Catholic) institution from the time of its foundation on the present premises in 1864, has been under the management of the fathers of the Society of Jesus, .... also known as the Jesuits. It consists of two sections: an Anglo-Indian (ICSE) and an English teaching (S.S.C.), each with its separate building and staff. The two sections were formerly one school but since 1933 are two separate schools.

So, while the Jesuits considers them two separate schools, they are co-located on the one site, adjacent to each other. There are two seperate websites: SSC and ICSE. After careful consideration, and given the (stub) article size (especially in the SSC article), I think that the content in the SSC article can easily be explained in the context of ICSE, and the ICSE article is of a reasonable size that the merging of SSC will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Your constructive feedback is most welcome. Rangasyd (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

1. If you look at the user page of Jzsj, you will understand why he is not giving his opinion.
2. I do not think a merger is in order here, as those school are separated more than 85 years ago. But I do have a notability concern against both. The Banner talk 11:06, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I do not believe a merger is appropriate, as while the two schools are run by the Jesuits, they are completely different in terms of their history, campus, the students who attended/attend the school, etc. They are not co-located on a single campus, they are across each other. St. Mary's ICSE is renowned as one of the best boys day schools in India, and St. Mary's SSC is not. St. Mary's SSC is a different school in its own right. They compete with other schools separately, their teaching staff, events, facilities, etc are all separate. There is nothing that the two schools do together. The schools are different and thus, after careful consideration, I believe the merger should not happen.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.240.65 (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

removed person without article, deemed not notable?

May one ask why one's additions were removed? A former Mayor of Bombay, an Assistant Surgeon who was awarded the honour of Khan Bahadur as a personal distinction, who literally featured in India's Who's Who, a Member of the Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay, a published member of the Asiatic Society of Bombay and a Bombay District Health officer were added. One fails to see how they didn't pass muster, considering the alumni section of Cathedral and John Connon School has links masquerading as citations that just lead to the homepage of the website of another branch of the school.

If the question is one of notability of the subjects added, then still, how're the aforementioned personalities any less notable than Campion's? I realise it was done in good faith but, I would like to make my case that my edits ought to be restored. Immaculata97 (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

OK. So while it wasn't me that removed the entries that you added, I can understand quite clearly why the editor reverted your edits in 'one swoop'. Some more care on your part would have averted that. Typically, edits by 'unregistered editors' will be reverted, whereas discussion will take place with more experience editors. I encourage you to register as a member of the Wikipedia community and establish your own User page and User talk page. BTW, I removed your citations provided inline links as above. Talk pages typically don't have citations.

As to the matters you raised above, I draw your attention to the Wikipedia definition of notability for alumni relative to schools. For each person listed they need to:

1. be notable = have a Wikipedia article on them is a good example of notability ... hence, no red-links; AND
2. have a citation that clearly indicates that they are alumni of the school. There is no need to provide a citation as to their notability, or even link their notability; this is achieved by point #1 above. Third-party sources should be used. That means the school's website or alumni association website is not a reliable source for inclusion on a list of notable alumni.

Also, for good 'hygiene' of the lists:

1. the listing should be maintained in alphabetical order, sorted by family name;
2. the citation should be provided once only, at the end of phrase; and
3. the citation should be completed in accordance with Wikipedia's policy re citations, especially avoiding bareURLs that regrettably you used in all your citations.

So, looking at those that you added, in the order that they were added:

1. Louis Godinho – failed as not-notable; failed as source was not third party; failed on all three hygiene reasons
2. Khan Bahadur Erachji Sheriarji Bharucha – failed as not-notable; failed as source was not third party; failed on all three hygiene reasons
3. Added a category of Miscellaneous – an inappropriate category
4. DM DeSilva – failed as not-notable; failed as source was not third party; failed on all three hygiene reasons
5. Joseph Baptista – failed as source was not third party; failed on all three hygiene reasons; however, warrants inclusion, with a suitable citation, and placed in the law category (he was a barrister for ~20 years). I have actioned this.
6. Rastamji Pestanji Karakria – failed as not-notable; failed as source was not third party; failed on all three hygiene reasons; and you cannot use Wikipedia as a source, as you did for 'orientalists'.

Thanks for drawing editors' attention to other alumni lists. You will notice that Campion School's alumni section has a tag a the top of it drawing editors' attention that the article's list of alumni may not follow Wikipedia's verifiability policy and invites editors to help address the issue. And a similar tag is in place at the Cathedral and John Connon School's alumni section. Perhaps, if you do want to compare lists, extract a featured/good article list of alumni and use that as a model for how your edits should look. Many thanks. Cheers. Rangasyd (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)