Talk:Moeller High School

Copyright violation

The History section of this article is copied directly from Moeller's website. [1] I'm working to rewrite it, so that it doesn't violate our copyright policy.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 19:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten the History section and turned the Academics section into a quote, so that it isn't plagiarism. It'd be nice to know how many students were in the Class of 1964, so that the sentence "In 1964, the Moeller High School's first class graduated" doesn't sound so weak. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 19:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Academic Excellence

As a local, I've never exactly heard of Moeller as being known for their academic excellence. Certainly their art program, but not much else. Undersea

No mention of Gerry Faust?

I see that this athletic section has no mention of Gerry Faust, who coached there from 1963-1980 and, quoting from the article about him, his remarkable 174-17-2 record was highlighted by seven unbeaten seasons, four national prep titles, and five Ohio state titles in his last six seasons --rogerd 23:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Notable alumni

Please show some restraint when adding names to the "Notable alumni" list, especially with regard to athletes. I realize that many of the athletes that've been added are well-known in the Moeller community, but in the big scheme of things, they might not necessarily be "notable" enough for Wikipedia. I commented out names of college athletes whose sole description on the page was the sport they play and the school they play for; if there's something that makes these athletes notable, feel free to mention that and add them back in. While you're at it, if you know a good amount about these athletes and they seem noteworthy enough, please consider writing an separate article about them. It's not really helpful to the average reader when they see a list of names, sports, and schools, and know nothing more about these people.

(Yes, I went to St. X, but that's not why I pruned the list a bit. After all, I know one of these guys. I'd just like to see this article reach a level of quality that won't require a "references or sources" sign at the top.)

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 00:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Much agreed. Hold back on the "Notable" Alumni and Faculty. If they have an article, by all means, include them. If not, think twice, and, if in doubt, ask on the talk page (that's here).--Unionhawk ^Talk 17:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Moeller.jpg

Image:Moeller.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus to move. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 11:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

From WP:RM:

Official school name should be used for Encylclopedia entry. Other page can be redirect. EagleFan (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Listing here to allow discussion. Andrewa (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... only 4,510 ghits with Archbishop but 15,400 without, so for every ghit with Archbishop there are two and a bit without. So in terms of Wikipedia:common name, the move doesn't look on.

You may be correct to leave the title as is, but using google hits to determine the title? Just because many article writers drop the Archbishop when writing about athletics does not mean we should discard the name here. Besides, by using the quotes in the google search, you are GUARANTEEING a smaller number of hits for the string with the extra word. EagleFan (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The Google test is just one piece of evidence that should be considered. Yes, of course the smaller number of hits for the longer string is guaranteed and that fact is not significant. But 15,400 - 4,510 = 10,890 > 4,510, that's what is significant. Andrewa (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably the most common mistake about article naming is to think that the official name is always preferred. Perhaps it should be, but current policy is not to. Andrewa (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

5 or 6 all male schools?

Why does it say 1 of 6 all male schools? I count only 5.

Moeller Elder X LaSalle CovCath

Who is the 6th? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyleralf (talk • contribs) 12:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Importance on WikiProject Ohio

I rated it a Low, because it applys to, "Subject is peripheral knowledge, usually only of interest to Ohioans or those studying Ohio in depth" from the WikiProject Ohio Article Classification page--Unionhawk (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Bill Braun

I need a third opinion on the notability of Bill Braun. There has been an ongoing dispute, and I think a third opinion is in order.--Unionhawk (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

From WP:INDISCRIMINATE--Unionhawk (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not notable - looks like nothing more than vandalism, I would request some minimal protection. -- Lucas20 (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Do not include. He doesn't appear to be independently notable and as such this is a potential WP:BLP violation. Why list this one teacher and not others? Cool3 (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Censorship concerns

It seems that any content that paints Moeller in an unpositive light is swifty deleated, disregarding its accuracy. This was done a while back when a sentance was taken down regarding the ineffectivness of Moeller's laptop program, and I have constantly tried to post the following to no avail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthmustbeheard (talk • contribs) 06:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting your concerns. The issue is that you are offering information that is tainted with subjectivity and bias. Wikipedia entries must be written from a neutral point of view WP:NPOV and and must be verifiable WP:V. If you post information in objective language with sources, it has a good chance of remaining. -- ForgottenManC (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Right. Everything that is not neutral or verifiable will be challenged first. Things that are both will be removed. The statement in question had a {{vague}} tag, and was unsourced. This is not censorship, this is ensuring NPOV.--Unionhawk ^Talk 11:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

oh. in that case, (seeing history) not censorship, just not what wikipedia is about.--Unionhawk ^Talk 14:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

House system

"Moeller is also involved in the House System. A great way for student to meet other students in their own grade and in grades above them." Saying something's "great" without it being part of a quote probably doesn't stand. But based on what's there, I can't even tell what the house system is--it's probably better for someone familiar with the system to address it and take care of expansion in one go. Irisa Dunner (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

All right... here's as much information as I could dump into the talk page:

• Moeller is divided into 6 houses, made up of students from each grade
  • Each house is divided into smaller mentor groups, with about 5 people from each grade. This is like a homeroom that meets every day.
    • The mentor teacher in that mentor group will monitor each person's grades. They will call each student up and talk to them if their grades are bad.
• The six houses are Zaragoza, Zehler, Eveslage, Quiroga, Pilar, and Trinity
  • The houses will compete against each other for house points; much like in Harry Potter, and will win the Marianist Cup at the end for the most points.

Somehow, find a source for all that, and figure out how to incorperate it. I would do it myself, but I'm too lazy at the moment...--Unionhawk ^Talk 11:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The school is cooperating on sex abuse

They even have listed the dates of when the accused Marian clergy worked at the school. https://www.wlwt.com/article/marianists-identify-16-priests-brothers-with-local-ties-accused-of-sexual-abuse/32961467 Even the Cheverus High School article has included sex abuse accusation details, so I see no reason why this shouldn't either.2601:447:4080:10:59B7:FF01:64E1:419F (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)