Talk:Miss Porter's School

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Upgrading article[edit]

You may want to consider upgrading this article to conform to Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. Davodd 08:04, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

An upgrade is essential, since the article as it exists now is poor. I am an alumna, and I am embarrassed by it. Either the Sarah Porter site should be merged with it, or the information about Porter should be largely confined to her own article. The material regarding the archives is unnecessary, since information about that is unlikely to be of interest to people merely seeking facts about the school. If they wish to know about the archives, they can and should go to the official website. I can't say that I consider the endowment campaign to be of great relevance either. Perhaps some qualified individual at the school should retool this article completely, noting, in particular, the repetitions and inconsistencies in the list of alumnae. (Is Edie Bouvier Beale really a notable alumna, notwithstanding the Broadway show? I don't agree.)68.72.106.114 22:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yale[edit]

I must take issue with the claim that the "majority" of MPS graduates attended Yale. I am an MPS graduate who DID attend Yale. I was one of three students admitted to Yale, out of a class of 75. One of my classmates was admitted to Harvard, and, if I'm remembering correctly, two were admitted to Princeton.

I've followed later college admissions statistics for MPS: they do not suggest that the "majority" (far, far from it) of MPS students have been admitted to Yale. Who on earth made this ridiculous claim? It isn't true. Unless someone can offer me statistics that I don't have in hand, I will remove this claim within the next week.Lolliapaulina51 (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Child?[edit]

Is there some evidence that Julia Child actually attended Miss Porter's? This is not mentioned in the thorough biography "An Appetite for Life" which details her education in great detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HansLechner (talk • contribs) 01:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable alumnae[edit]

There's a disagreement about whether to include Hayley Petit and Elizabeth Cushman Titus Putnam in the list of notable alumnae. While there is no Wikipedia guideline requiring that these people have articles about them to establish notability the general practice on Wikipedia is to establish the notability (using Wikipedia's definition) of these people first and then include them in lists. The concept of "notability" is already a confusing one for people not familiar with Wikipedia policy and guidelines and not being consistent with our use (deleting articles for not being notable but allowing a non-notable person in a list with the section heading of "notable") just adds to that confusion. I propose that these two people be deleted from the list till such a time as they are established as being notable. SQGibbon (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out Wikipedia:DEL#Merging: "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists. For example, information about family members of a celebrity who are not otherwise notable is generally included in, or merged into, the article on that celebrity. " This was the case for Ms. Petit, as her article was merged into the one on the Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders. As for Ms. Putnam, is probably unlikely to ever have her own article (or one that has much content if it were made), but being awarded a medal by the President seems enough to pass the notability test for an alumni list, as Whitehouse.Gov is certainly valid per WP:SOURCES.
Note that besides having links to their attendent articles that both of these are also footnoted, so they should therefore stay as they are cited content. I have no complaint about the removal of Mabel Hobart Brandon or Elizabeth Wise as they have no obvious notability. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get that these people are surrounded by notable events but that does not automatically confer notability on them. If they are notable then create articles for them. So far I can't find anything that makes either of them notable. What this still comes down to is whether we should stick with notability as defined by WP:N or something less strict. Just about every article I come across on Wikipedia applies WP:N to lists of subjects and I see no reason not to do the same here.
Also, being properly cited is not really relevant. But since you brought it up I'm not seeing where the citation for Elizabeth Putnam indicates that she graduated from this school. SQGibbon (talk) 23:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moot As I have pointed out, standard list practice does not require wp:v. However, if you did a simple google search you would find that Elizabeth Putnam graduated in 1951.[[1]] (please see page 9). Now I'm a sticker and have cleaned up probably every school in Connecticut's alumni/famous professor etc lists... but IMO you're carying this a bit far. On most every list I see, a wikipage *or* a citation is enough. Here you're asking for the removal of two cited entries, both of which also have articles related to them where they are cited and mentioned as notable. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at this way, let's say that I agree that Hayley Petit should be included in this article because she does receive significant coverage in another article on Wikipedia (though she herself is not notable enough to have her own article). But there is absolutely no way Elizabeth Putman should be included because she has no significant coverage in Wikipedia and has only won an award that a lot of other people have. Someone else might come along and say that neither of these people should be included because neither, according to Wikipedia standards, is notable. But then yet another person comes along and says that not only should both of these people be included but thousands of others who are reliably sourced to have attended this school and were, for example, owner of a once popular restaurant that received some reviews in a local newspaper, or was interviewed by a local newspaper when some store went out of business, or was interviewed by a local TV station because that person was in a parade. Because there are no clear guidelines for this situation then all four of us have valid arguments and can (and will) spend days, weeks, months, and pages upon pages, arguing about whether the local florist should be included in the list. Instead, if we follow the lead of all the other thousands of articles in my watchlist that contain lists and only include people who are notable enough to have articles in Wikipedia then there is no wasted time or effort. There are no arguments as everything remains cut and dry. Does this person have their own article? If not then they are not included in the list. If so then they can be. It's easy, no muss no fuss. I don't know if that's why Wikipedia notability has become the de facto criterion for determining inclusion in lists like this but it's a darn good reason for it.
Also, did you really mean to say "if you did a simple google search"? Isn't that your job since you are the one insisting that this person be included? I wish I had time to do a Google search for every single thing I come across on Wikipedia but I don't. If someone is going to assert that there exists a reliable source supporting a claim then it is up to that person to include that source in the first place. SQGibbon (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for seeing the light re: Ms. Petit.
As I keep pointing out, standard list practice does not require wp:v. Ergo, that means wp:n is also not required. As for the rest of your comment, you're totally ignoring my point about WP:SOURCES: if you're saying that receiving a medal from the President and being listed on whitehouse.gov is the same as getting reviewed as a floral arranger in New Haven Patch, then I think you need to seriously re-evaluate your arguement. That both women have pages they are on (in Petit's case, a merged page at that) *and* had valid citations puts them way over the minimum requirement for inclusion. I don't mean to sound tetchy, please don't take that as an insult as it is not meant to be one.
Yep. I did not add Ms Putman, I re-added her since she had a valid citation, again per standard list practice. If you questioned that she is a graduate, you could have at least looked to see if there was *anything* about her being one. But since you asked, I provided a source as required. IMO, not doing so is like those "busy people" whom can tag 80 articles with "not referenced" tags, but don't add a References section with reflist. IMO, if you're going to challenege something, at least meet a minimum level of effort. Personally, I don't have time to debate how lists work on wikipedia, but I'm doing it anyway. Thank you for adding the second citation, I trust we are concluded? Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that receiving a medal from the president is the same as a floral arranger, they are different and that is my point! You've established an arbitrary set of criteria for what counts as notable. Someone else could come along and establish their own arbitrary set of criteria that does allow for the floral arranger. In my hypothetical example I set an arbitrarily chosen set of criteria that allowed for Ms. Petit but not Ms. Putman. And every single other person on the planet can come along and argue for their own arbitrarily chosen set of criteria to allow this person here but not that person there. And there is absolutely no objective or rational way to prove that one is best over the other. OR we could use the definition that Wikipedia already uses and is used de facto by hundreds and thousands of articles in Wikipedia already which is WP:N. It's easy and clean. If you take nothing else away from this exchange please take away this point: using WP:N makes managing lists so much easier for everyone.
Ms. Putnam did not have a valid citation since there was nothing indicating that she attended this school (which is a problem with almost all of the rest of the people listed in that section, by the way). Look, I see by your edit count that you are an experienced editor. If you add a claim to an article then I expect you, like I do with all experienced editors, to add a citation. I patrol recent changes on Wikipedia. I see hundreds of edits every day by IPs that aren't sourced. If it looks reasonable I tag it and move on. If it looks unlikely or is controversial I revert it. Whenever I come across a claim that has been tagged I check the date on it and act accordingly. We all do different things on Wikipedia. More instances of vandalism occur every minute than there are people to patrol recent changes. We miss vandalism all the time and some of it rather serious violations of WP:BLP (with all the legal ramifications that poses). If I, and other rcp folk, don't chase down every edit made by every single person we come across but instead tag or revert, that's an acceptable loss of a potentially good edit in exchange for the 20 more instances of vandalism that are going to occur that we each would miss by chasing down a source for that edit.
What it all comes down to is this. If you make an edit then the responsibility is on you to make sure you supply a reliable source to back it up. Also, creating lists of "notable" figures where we use a definition of notability different from the one already in place on Wikipedia means endless edit wars and arguments. Follow WP:N and it's all so much easier and cleaner.
Finally, I'm not going to contest the addition of Ms. Petit and Ms. Putman any more. The standard operating procedure of heavily edited articles with lists would be to not include them, but whatever. A couple of things for you to keep in mind though. One is that if another experienced editor comes along he/she is very likely to delete those two entries as not being notable. Two, all the people in that list need reliable sources indicating that they attended this school. It's unfortunate that probably 95% of all school articles are poorly sourced in this regard but that doesn't mean we shouldn't follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies with respect to those articles (not to mention WP:BLP can be a legitimate concern as well). Cheers. SQGibbon (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again: I did not set it up, and it is not arbitrary -- IT IS STANDARD WIKIPEDIA LIST PRACTICE.
And, again: I did not add it, I restored it. Big difference.
Yes, I know all about wp:burden. I assume you know about wp:good faith. I also expect that by your edit count that you should know that wp:n is not a magic wand. You're trying to force a rule where none exists, and that's that.
Which is a good thing, since they are both adequately cited. Er, no, again, you're applying something to lists that does not apply. See you around, Markvs88 (talk) 01:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something you might find useful, under the Wikipedia schools project are these guidelines about adding alumni to articles here. SQGibbon (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks you, that's VERY useful: "All alumni information must be referenced... it is not necessary for their notability to be referenced." Thanks for finally agreeing that "As I have pointed out, standard list practice does not require wp:v". Again, Ms. Petit and Ms. Putnam were fine in the first place. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, a bit of selective reading there. Here's the entire line where you left out the first part of the sentence "When alumni have their own articles in mainspace, it is not necessary for their notability to be referenced, as long as it is done in the biographical articles." Since neither of these people has there own article in the mainspace then this clause does not apply. Then it goes on to say "Individual alumni need a citation to a) to verify that they did indeed attend the school, and b) to verify the statement of their notability in their short one or two line description." and "Per Wikipedia:Bio#Lists of people, alumni to be included should meet Wikipedia notability criteria". Notice that the first use of "notable" links to WP:N and the second one to WP:BASIC which is WP:N but specifically applied to biographies. The guideline makes it very clear that WP:N is the criterion we should be using. SQGibbon (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for proving my point, I'm done here. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, since the WP:SCHOOLS project's own guidelines about alumni requires us to follow WP:NOTABILITY and you have not demonstrated that either of these people is notable, then I'm deleting them. SQGibbon (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly how many times do I have to point out that Ms. Petit HAS a page, and that Ms. Putnam has two valid citations? By your own obsessive requirements they pass muster. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ms. Petit does not have a page, there's a redirect for her name to another page. She is not notable enough to have her own page. It does not matter if Ms. Putnam has 100 "valid citations", all that matters is if she's notable (as per the requirements listed in the guidelines I linked to and quoted above) which point you have not demonstrated. Show that these people are notable using WP:NOTABILITY then this discussion ends. Otherwise they do not belong. SQGibbon (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot believe an experienced editor is arguing for the removal of cited content. IT DOES matter, your own arguements have borne out what I've been saying the entire time, AND you're in violation of WP:USI.
Fine, since you can't seem to grasp it yourself: WP:GNG states:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

  • Ms. Petit: had her article merged in with her family, and the story was covered in thousands of news outlets and has 53 citations on her page. INCLUDED ON THE PAGE is an external link to Messages about the death of Hayley Petit – Miss Porter's School. This goes far beyond the requirements of notability.
  • Ms. Putnam has two citations, which is the bare minimum for notability. Just so it makes you feel better, I have written her a page! Congratulations, you're now the reason for the creation of a Stub (Elizabeth Cushman Titus Putnam) which will be unlikely to ever be improved. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Citations do not establish notability. It's the quality of the information that is being cited that establishes notability (which is why, for instance, citations based on a subject's own website are not sufficient for establishing notability). That Ms. Putnam founded an organization (that currently has an article but looking at it I see that's it has been tagged for not establishing notability and not having references, sigh) does not by itself establish notability. That she won an award does not by itself establish notability. That she won an award for the organization she founded might establish notability. If her article were nominated for deletion I believe there is a very good chance it would be deleted for not being notable and her name would be redirected to Student Conservation Association.
Likewise Ms. Petit has already been deemed non-notable which is why her name redirects to another article. I have not been able to find an article for her that was merged with the Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders article but perhaps I'm just not using the proper spelling variant to find it. In any case, if she were notable she would have an article.
Finally, this is tiresome. You've refactored one of my comments, accused me of not assuming good faith, of violating USI, you've created an article about a non-notable person, and have added non-notable people to a list of notable people. I'm tired of the fighting so I give up. You win. Congratulations. SQGibbon (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, citations most certainly DO establish notabilty. Without citations, anything and everything can be deleted. All 7 of the ones I've put on her page fit every requirement, and I should think you honored to have an article where you're dedicated to on the first edit. If you dislike the article, go for the AfD. Should you do so, I think you'll find it meets minimal notability. I don't know what your beef with this particular woman is, but I find it hysterical that you blindly accept others on the page such as Theodate Pope Riddle, whom has no citation of having attended the school at all, verus Ms. Putnam, whom does.

Ms. Petit was not considered non-notable, she was found to be notable as a member of a group in an event, which is covered by WP:BIO1E.

I did not refactor any of your comments. I do assume you did not act in good faith by reverting something you'd already agreed upon and which (with 2 citations) already met the minimum level required for notability. You also DID violate USI, and I've created an article I did not want to create because of your insistance to enforce a "requirement" which was already met well beyond Wikipedia policy. I agree, this has been tiresome. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re citations: Please read WP:GNG specifically the sections on "significant coverage", "sources", and "independent of the subject" which all speak to the point that it's not the citation but the quality of the information being cited that establishes notability. You can make a valid citation out of a telephone directory but that does not establish notability.
Re blindly accept(ing) others on the page: My feeling was that it would be best to deal with these two examples before starting in on the others. This one is going so badly as it is I couldn't see the point of making things even worse.
Re Ms. Petit being notable: If she were notable she would have her own article. That she received significant coverage in a notable event puts her into something of a gray area with respect to these issues and inclusion on this list.
Re refactoring: I misspoke. What you did was edit my comments. You've now done that twice, both times inserting spelling mistakes. Please read WP:TPO for the specific guidelines concerning this. This is disruptive behavior.
Re good faith: You accused me of not acting in good faith before I made that change: your accusation, my change that you now claim is the reason you've accused me of acting in bad faith. The time stamps demonstrate the falsity of your claim here.
Re my reverting the article: Up to that point I was not aware that Wikipedia guidelines were on my side with respect to this debate. Up to that point I felt we were arguing what essentially boiled down to opinions on the best way to edit. Once it became clear that the guidelines actually dealt with this issue (that alumni lists require WP:N) and that you were not responding to any of those points then the change was made.
Re USI: I do not understand your interpretation of WP:USI. It states "When information is unsourced, and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed." This is exactly how I felt and acted. SQGibbon (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for any changes to your posts: they were unintentional. I am working on a laptop with no mouse and an eraserpoint that seems to love changing my cursor position. While I've been pasting in my replies, I was unaware that anything in your section(s) was being changed. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

I am assessing this article for WikiProject Schools following a request to do so. Firstly, on importance, the school's age and history suggests high-importance for WikiProject Schools. I am also bringing it up to C-class across all projects, although I think further work is needed to pass the B-class criteria. In particular, there is a problem with referencing, as despite the long list of referencing, there is almost no citations in the alumni, student life, and a few other sections. The references which do exist could also be presented better, with use of citation templates rather than bare URLs. I also note that a lot of the reference material is from the school website; the school website can be used but as much as possible should be from third party sources.

The layout of the article should conform better to WP:WPSCH/AG#S, for instance summer programmes should probably be with academics/curriculum, and any missing sections added as appropriate. Some existing sections clearly need expanding, for instance the history section should be much longer for a school of this age, and the lead section is way too short; it should introduce and fully summarize the article - see WP:LEAD. Articles should generally be written in prose by default, and the campus facilities section would probably flow better in paragraphs, and possibly be a little more concise. The notable alumni section is getting very long and consideration should possibly be given to splitting it off into its own article - see List of Boston Latin School alumni for an example. It's good to see some pictures although the picture in the infobox should normally be that of the school logo. Any free pictures which are not on Commons should be moved there, and all can be linked to from the article using {{Commons category}}.

The article's tone is okay, although there are some hints of promotion and peacock terms in places, for example "As a college preparatory school, Porter's offers a fairly rigorous curriculum as it prepares young women to "shape a changing world."" This isn't very useful readers - more time needs to be spent explaining what the curriculum actually is, with readers left to descide for themselves whether it is rigorous. CT Cooper · talk 15:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Head of School[edit]

I suggest that the history of this school could be improved if there was a list of all Heads of School and their dates of service.71.230.201.203 (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Miss Porter's School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Miss Porter's School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Miss Porter's School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Miss Porter's School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Miss Porter's School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Miss Porter's School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Miss Porter's Schooll" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Miss Porter's Schooll. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 10#Miss Porter's Schooll until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 05:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Alumnae vs Alumni[edit]

There's discourse on whether it should be changed to alumni for inclusivity, and I implore those in disagreement to discuss it here instead of in edit notes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doll Allison (talk • contribs) 18:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Megadesk edit warring[edit]

@Megadesk is making a lot of edits that are not constructive. They abuse certain sources (Davis and Donahue (1992). Miss Porter's School: A History) as cites, but give no page numbers. Then they keep adding social media as references. Now we have the problem mit MOS:Honorifics, reverted today. I suspect Conflict of Interest, lack of NPOV, and a strong personal connection to Miss Porter's, since they have made hundreds of edits on this page and almost nowhere else. The edits are often detriments to the page's quality. This is getting out of control. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Megadesk is back. Making boosterism edits with no referencing, using social media. Give us a break. --Melchior2006 (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Academics: Unreferenced assertions[edit]

We need a source for this, otherwise delete: Structured academically in accordance with contemporaneous, decidedly more econometric institutional models, nearly, if not painfully so, to point of paradox, the school counts more traditional novice-most intramural demonym, freshmen, amongst its (mod 4) grade level designations; more or less in keeping with decidedly (if not perfunctorily) post-structuralist tradition, by necessity of form, to project a selectively (if defensively) hypermasculine visual identity in terms of service (e.g., by insignia, Wellesley College). Melchior2006 (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original research and entirely unencyclopedic in tone. Does not belong. SQGibbon (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traditions[edit]

Currently, there are four traditions listed, none of them have any sourcing except for an illegit social media reference @Megadesk keeps edit-warring about. All of these traditions should be deleted if there is no sourcing for them. If Megadesk refuses to participate in discussions, then they should be blocked from editing this page. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, they should not be on the page. Even if they were sourced they would not belong without sources establishing not just the existence of these traditions but why they are important in gaining a general understanding of the subject. SQGibbon (talk) 23:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni[edit]

The sources have already been provided. Summerdays1 (talk) 00:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is classic WP:VNOT. A gallery of alumni doesn't promote an encyclopedic understanding of the subject, and pictures aren't there just for decoration. VQuakr (talk) 02:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting discussion for higher-ed editors, since alum pix galleries often get excessive, like the Miss Porter's alum gallery was. What criteria should we use in order to cut back on boosterism and self-promotion? --Melchior2006 (talk) 18:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zero is the correct number of pictures to have in a notable alumni list per MOS:PERTINENCE. VQuakr (talk) 19:02, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miss_Porter%27s_School&oldid=1211077973"