Talk:Westmount Charter School

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 January 2017. The result of the discussion was keep.

Canada: Alberta / Education Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Canada.

Schools

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of the Parkdale location be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Calgary may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

The "Giftedness" section needs work; perhaps we should quote the school's philosophy? DeemDeem52 (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed a bunch of info and typos, I think there may be some more mistakes, someone should check. --the_hoodie 05:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I just fixed an error on this page; I am David Miko, and I am not the debate captain of Team Canada, Shalini Rao of Halifax Nova Scotia is. I removed that, and instead wrote reigning titles the school has in debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr8rdb8r (talk • contribs) 03:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Total Rewrite?

This article is quite poor and may need a total rewrite. I'm adding the template for that, but I'd like to start organizing it here. The LB Pearson article is a great example of what we should strive for here. Nick Heer 19:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image update

I took an image recently and uploaded it. Is it fair to delete the image request?

Westmount Charter Article Edit War

(Moved from my talk page)

Stop removing the image that complies with Wikipedia's guidelines. In the upload wizard it says that you can use a logo if you use it only once as primary identification for the page which is what I did. Stop removing it. MrDankMeme (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

Yes, that's what it says check it for yourself.MrDankMeme (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did. LOOK AT CONTEXT PLEASE. Read this too: "Free-content images generally fall into two categories: (1) images that no one owns (i.e., "public domain" images), and (2) images that someone owns, but have been freely licensed." This image does not fall in one of these categories. Westmount Charter School owns the image and they have NOT freely licensed the image. Do not revert my FINAL edit. You WILL be violating Wikipedia policy.

STOP 22:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

YOU HAVE NOT USED THE UPLOAD WIZARD! PLEASE LOOK AT THE SECTION ON LOGOS! YOU ARE EXPLICITLY VIOLATING THE POLICY ON LOGOS! READ IT! MrDankMeme (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused on how I am violating the policy. You are the one who added the copyrighted logo. Please explain. FibonacciYYC (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we have resolved it on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#MrDankMeme_and_FibonacciYYC_reported_by_Theinstantmatrix_%28Result%3A_%29 so i will now add the image! thank youMrDankMeme (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Giftedness, article cleanup, and revision wars

My edits are all accurate and sourced. It is ridiculous and frustrating to have edits reverted by people who won't even bother to properly read the article or source. One reversion refers to a sentence discussing charter schools. See page 4 of source. Another reversion removes the school's definition of giftedness, and as it is the sole focus of the school it is not promotional. The school is a charter school specifically for gifted learners. If you want to delete the definition of giftedness and the admission requirements, you may as well delete the Academics section on the Harvard page. By that definition, it's also "promotional." Lostinvention (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability does not equate to inclusion. See WP:NOT among dozens of other things. Per WP:BRD, disputed new content stays out until a consensus is formed (which in this case, most likely won't happen). I oppose any section titled "Giftedness" (WTF does that even mean?). This is nothing but WP:SCHOOLCRUFT. John from Idegon (talk) 07:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The material about the school's definition of giftedness was removed two years ago as being promotional. So that's the status quo until we reach a consensus on whether it should be restored. Please stop restoring it until the discussion is completed.

The sentence "As a charter school, Westmount offers a personalized and alternative curriculum to the CBE standards that is focused on gifted learners" is not supported by the cited source. It is a general government charter school document that does not mention the school, does not mention the school board, and does not mention the school's focus. I'm sure we can come up with something that works, but that sentence wit that source is not it. Meters (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Google it, or read the Wikipedia entry? Or the exact thing that I included in the article, and you are saying shouldn't be included? You realize how ironic it is to way WTF is giftedness, when you are arguing to remove the definition of giftedness from the article, right? Lostinvention (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

addn: as for "schoolcruft," look at my Wikipedia edit history. I just hate having people revert edits that are accurate and well-sourced because they are too lazy or too ignorant to do anything else. Lostinvention (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I feel I have to reiterate, though I should not have to, that it is a charter school for gifted learners. Break down that sentence. Their charter (look up the definition if you need to) is tied to their special, specific focus on giftedness. It's not some meaningless buzzword, it's their whole mandate. I defined it, if you don't know what it is that's not my problem. Go read about it if you want. Lostinvention (talk) 07:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to previous edit, as edit is well-sourced and warrants inclusion as it is the entire focus of the school. Otherwise delete Academics page of Harvard. Double-standard, go argue with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harvard_University&action=history User:Ajd Lostinvention (talk) 08:10, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The material you deleted from Harvard University [1] is not at all comparable to what we are discussing here. A long quote from Westmount school on how they define giftedness does not seem to belong in this article. I fail to see how you can equate this to sources such as The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times discussing Harvard's admission policies. Meters (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that at least the first set of changes has settled, let's deal with the rest of the contested addition.

user: Lostinvention, the paragraph starting "Despite popular misconceptions" containing the quote by a former principal has no place in this article. The article is about this school, not giftedness or the education of gifted children in general. We have Intellectual giftedness and Gifted education for that. I'm removing it.

User:John from Idegon, you indicated that you thought the entire section should go, but I think a case can be made for discussing the admission requirements. Psych and IQ testing is not at all the norm for a publicly-funded Canadian school (Alberta charter schools are public schools, and are government funded). I suggest keeping a version of that material and renaming the section "Admissions" or something along those lines.

Charters are granted so that schools can provide an alternative, something that is seen to be missing in the public system, so it would be interesting to see something in the article about how this charter school's approach to gifted education differs from that of the Calgary Education Board (which has its own program for gifted students). Meters (talk) 08:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but of course the compare and contrast would obviously require reliable secondary sources. John from Idegon (talk) 08:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]