Talk:Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Victuallers 12:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

more refs please for a B Victuallers 22:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:New Roosevelt logo.PNG

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:New Roosevelt logo.PNG 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) 21:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Just in case someone suspects that the contents of this article are simply copied from the school's website, I just want to make it clear that, in fact, the opposite is true. I wrote them first on Wikipedia and then they were used on the school district's webpage about Roosevelt here. The district's page also includes a link to the school's main website, RHSWeb. --JonRidinger (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RHSSeal.png

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:RHSSeal.png 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) 04:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Shade of Red

As for the shade of red used in the logo vs. the shade of red used in the infobox, the shade used in the infobox is the hex number identified as "red." Roosevelt lists its colors as just "red, white, and black" and the uniforms and other sportswear that have red in them are basic red. Here is an example...note the uniform's shade of red versus the website's shade of red in the border and logo. The uniforms are basic red, while the website uses a deeper shade, most likely to be easier for the viewer. The shade used in the picture Image:New Roosevelt logo.PNG shouldn't be judged as "the" shade used by the school especially since it's a low-resolution image. The logos used on Ohio State's pages illustrate how the low-resolution logo isn't always the correct shade...several of the athletic logos are (or were...several were changed to match the actual hex "scarlet") a deeper shade of red even though it is clearly stated that OSU's colors are "scarlet and gray" and scarlet is a very bright shade of red. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. I falsely assumed that the red on Image:New Roosevelt logo.PNG would be closer to Roosevelt's school color than "web-safe" red (i.e. what is displayed when one types in "red" for a color value). After all, "red" doesn't always mean red; look, for example, how marked the difference is between how Garfield & Windham interpret the color "gold". Just the same though, Jon, I'll defer to you on this one, since I'm guessing you've actually been to some TRHS athletic contests in your life. ;-) -- JeffBillman (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks...but that's the beauty of Wikipedia...we can apply our personal knowledge and experience where needed (with adequate sources of course!). Of note both Kent State and Akron identify "gold" as one of their colors, but Akron uses "metallic gold" and Kent State uses "golden" or web gold (i.e. yellow), which is what I'm assuming the difference is between Windham and Garfield. Windham always seems to use yellow with black and Garfield uses more black with metallic gold, or at least that's what it seems. And yes, I have been to a few TRHS athletic events in my life...class of 2000 ;).--JonRidinger (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Traditionally, Windham had used a "yellow"-like shade of gold, which I think Garfield also used (if memory serves). As Garfield started emphasizing its black color more, Windham changed to a metallic gold to distinguish its uniforms (and particularly football helmets). Or at least that's how it's been explained to me: This happened sometime between my graduation from WHS in 1990 and this year, so I don't know when it happened, nor do I have a reliable published source. -- JeffBillman (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

New additions

It's exciting to see new editors finally making some updates to this article. I am sorry if I come across as territorial, but please understand I have been editing Wikipedia for a number of years now and this was the first article I ever started and have done a lot of work for both editing and taking pictures for. That said, I don't consider it mine but I definitely keep a close eye on it. All my edits are done in doing my best to be within established Wikipedia guidelines as well as the guidelines for the Schools Wikiproject. That said, this article is far from where it needs to be as it is currently rated "C" class. Basically we need some things rewritten with more third party neutral sources, plus we need some more pictures of the school, both interior and exterior. One word of advice on pictures: if there is already a picture of something, don't replace it unless you can provide a replacement that is significantly better OR is an update for a view that has been changed (like if an addition or remodeling were done). Simply having the same view at a higher resolution isn't cause to change all the pictures unless the previous picture is of very low resolution (like a picture taken with a cell phone camera). Other reasons to replace a photo would be a much better angle and/or better lighting or better focus. Remember, the purpose of the pictures is to give the reader a better idea about the subject, which in this case is Roosevelt High School. High level of detail in the picture is great, but only so much is really needed unless it adds to the understanding of the subject.

Other changes that need to be made include the body of the article itself and adding more sections and placing them in the recommended order and adding more third-party sources. Guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines. Happy editing to all! Please become familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines on all aspects, including writing, sources, and images (see WP:MOS). I am by no means perfect in any of these areas but I know a lot more than when I first started editing! --JonRidinger (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Everyone, let's relax a moment. Qwerty, you're making changes with such speed that it's difficult for us to do the research you request without risking the loss of information already in the article. Now, you may have a point regarding the URL; it seems the domain you keep pushing for the article is indeed the one registered to the Kent City Schools. However, both URL's do lead to the same Internet resource, and I have to at least question the utility of a change. As for the school colors, you're off the mark. The colors have been red, white, and black since at least the 1960's, and probably well before that yet. There are editors who are quite willing to work with you on these edits, but you have to communicate with us. Thanks. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh there's no question the URL is registered to Kent City Schools as User:Jluscre pointed out. However, the district promotes its website as "" in published materials (I have a 2008-09 district calendar with "" in big letters on every page) and uses the address interchangeably on their own site since they both go to the same place without any redirect. Jluscre also pointed out the district got the domain name to make it easier to remember, so I don't see why we'd want to use the state-issued one when the district doesn't even tell people that's their web address. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

School Colors

The school colors that will be published on this page need to be figured out as an agreement can not be made as well as the web site address for now I think that they should both be removed untill and agreement can be made we do not want to be spreading false information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty5225 (talkcontribs) 01:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct as some sources list just red and white while others list red, white, and black. I would say black is definitely a color having gone to Roosevelt and seeing the uniforms used and the logo. All of them have black to some degree and some of them are mostly black with just a little red and white. The football team in particular uses black pants for both the home and away uniforms, while boys basketball and baseball use black as a trim color on both home and away. I believe the girls basketball team's away uniforms were black if they aren't anymore. They change every other year, but black is definitely used as a color. The logo contains black as well when it is placed on a red or white background. When my sister graduated from Roosevelt in '02, the robe colors were red for girls and black for boys after being red for boys and white for girls for decades until '01 (now they're just all black like a college). --JonRidinger (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we need to remove the color box, though, since this really isn't a critical element of the article. If there was an outstanding claim that was unsourced, then yeah, take it down until it's sourced, but the school colors? Not that big of a deal. I'm all for accuracy, but all the evidence points that black is definitely used as a school color. Why not focus our energy on expanding the article's content (particularly in academics and athletics) and getting it upgraded to someday be a featured article? --JonRidinger (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you're wanting here, Qwerty. You changed the colors to red and white, asking for a source. A source was provided for you. The source was then overwritten by someone (possibly you) whilst changing it back to red and white. As far as I know, the colors have been red, white, and black for as long as there has been a Roosevelt High School in Kent. This controversy seems manufactured, and the speed with which you lead your fellow editors on wild goose chases to confirm long-established facts in this article is alarming. Please work with us in talk, or I shall have no other choice but to pursue mediation. Thank you. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I see your source. Upon further investigation, it appears that this information (as appearing on ONN, which is owned by the same company that owns the Columbus Dispatch and WBNS in Columbus) comes from the OHSAA website. However, I have reason to believe that the OHSAA information is wrong. For one thing, sources in Northeast Ohio generally include black with the colors for TRHS. More importantly, however, the ONN source clearly shows black on the helmet logo for TRHS. Could we not reasonably conclude that whoever compiled the OHSAA information simply and mistakenly omitted black from the school colors? Certainly inclusion of the color black is not "false information", as you fear. -- JeffBillman (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Here are some photos I took in February 2008 inside the Roosevelt Gym. Not the greatest photos (my camera doesn't do well inside), but at least here they can help put this to rest. The most prominent feature is the set of stripes which rings the entire gym, which you see are red, white, and black. In picture 1 on the far left is the Roosevelt banner used by the PTC in all member school gyms; it too is mostly black. You can also see black on the shoulder area of the basketball team uniforms for Kent. In picture 2, you can see some of the bleachers; also black. Picture 3 shows the state championships and state runner-up banners, which are black (the league championship banners can be seen in picture 2 and on the far right of picture 3 and are red). In picture 4 you can see the Roosevelt cheerleaders in their black "Kent" uniforms. The only thing that has changed in the gym since I took this picture is the floor. It was redone probably during the summer of 2008 and now features the large logo in the center. Other than that, I think it's pretty clear black is definitely a school color, so the sources just lising red and white are incorrect.
--JonRidinger (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


I've been asked to give an opinion on the recent history of this page. I don't have time to go through everything, so I'll just offer a few comments:

  • Website: since both URLs go to the same place, and since kentschools is the actual link, we should use it. It's one thing to bypass redirects here on Wikipedia, but since that page doesn't have anything saying "(Redirected from", we shouldn't confuse the reader. Proof that it's the actual URL: if you go to this district webpage, it links to kentschools.
  • Colours: since we have a reference for all three, why a dispute?
  • Sports lists: before reading this page and before going through the article history, I was going to suggest removing these lists. Why do we need a long (and unreferenced) lists of sports played by TRHS students? Noting the championships is altogether reasonable, but I think that it would be better to say "TRHS students can compete in [NUMBER] sports during the fall, [NUMBER] sports during the winter, and [NUMBER] sports during the spring". Championships should be in prose, as well: it shouldn't be that hard to convert the section.
I should note that I've removed the alma mater: this isn't Wikisource, and the alma mater is probably copyrighted anyway. Nyttend (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all your suggestions. I responded on your talk page as I'm sure you've seen by now. For the benefit of others, I did re-add the first verse of the Alma Mater with a reference to the Roosevelt Handbook as Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#School songs, school hymns and fight songs allows the inclusion of school songs like the Alma Mater provided they are referenced. As for the athletics section, while I disagree that the list is that long, have a look at Plano Senior High School#Athletics for an example of what I'd like this section to look like. This article was a featured article and it focuses on the school's most notable teams and a more in-depth history rather than just a list. That's not to say we should follow that article exactly, but it's a good general guide. To me, a small list can be the catalyst for an actual paragraph. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the colors is that we have a source that states white and red and another that states the colors are black red and white this is clearly a problem that I think need to be addressed and a good citation found.Qwerty5225 (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Where's your non-black source? Looking over the edit history, I cannot find any edit in which white and red (without black) is referenced. Nyttend (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Im sorry I forgot to log in for that edit here is the source Qwerty5225 (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll

The thought occurs to me that we should conduct a little informal straw poll to achieve consensus over this domain issue for the TRHS website. Here's how we'll do it: In the comments below, cast your vote on whether you support or oppose a change in the article to the listed domain; i.e. either you support changing it to, or you oppose changing it from . If you could give a brief synopsis of your reasons for supporting or opposing the change, that would be helpful as well. I'll start it out:

Weak oppose. Honestly, I could be convinced either way. But because I see no compelling reason to select one or the other, I also don't see a reason to change. -- JeffBillman (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. In the bigger scheme of things it doesn't really matter since they both go to the same page, which is why I'm surprised this even has become an issue. However, I prefer using since it is the name the district actively promotes in their published literature (district calendar, newsletter, and Roosevelt newsletter all have ads directing people to "" see here, pages 7 & 9) and use as internal links on the website itself. If was a simple redirect to (or vice versa), I would want to use the actual address, i.e. what shows up in my browser no matter what I type, but as we have seen, neither is a redirect to the other. On top of that, is far easier to remember (and a lot less syllables to say!) than, which is why the district got the domain name in the first place. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. On a side note, using the "no consensus has been reached" as a reason to change it in the article is incorrect. If no consensus is reached, then leave as is. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Stantons page redirects to so we should be consistant. Qwerty5225 (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

While part of your statement is true, it is not a redirect; it is the internal link from the main district website. As I have stated before, both domains are used interchangeably within the website. If you type in there is no redirect to the domain. I also noticed that whichever domain you use to get to the Stanton site (kentschools or kent.k12) is the one the site uses for its own internal links. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Jon here. It's not a redirect; both domains resolve to the very same IP address. This suggests that one is a CNAME of the other, but it is impossible to tell (or at least it should be impossible to tell!) from outside the network which is which. To declare that is more authoritative than therefore smacks of original research. But never mind that... tell me why we should care. I really see no benefit in using one over the other. -- JeffBillman (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting note

I just noticed the Kent City Schools did a total update of all district websites in the last few days. Now, if you type in your browser (or just it is a redirect to So even if we had decided to go the other direction, we'd be changing it again now. Very interesting. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Recent reversions

I reverted two edits for the following reasons: 1st, the removal of the mention of the headquarters of the Davey Tree Expert Company. It is not irrelevant to mention that the Roosevelt campus is adjacent to it, particularly since Davey Tree is a notable subject with its own article. In describing the campus, it would make sense to describe its surroundings as well, but especially to mention anything it is near that is notable. It would be one thing if it said "and is located one mile south..." but instead it is adjacent, like literally next door.

2nd, the edit regarding "excessive info, borderline advert." I disagree. Those are simply descibing the facilities. Just because something is detailed doesn't mean it's an advertisement. Saying, for instance, one of the stadiums has a 9-lane all-weather track with seating for 500 is a fact, just like saying "Progressive Field seats over 43,000 and has a Kentucky Bluegrass field." An advert would include words like "best" or "top-notch" or other POV words and phrases designed purely to promote. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it because of Davey Tree that TRHS has an urban forestry program? That's certainly relevant to the subject of the article. (Just how many universities-- let alone high schools!-- have that program?) -- JeffBillman (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
If Davey Tree did start the Urban Forestry program then it should be noted for that and have a source because things need to be cited. Urban forestry is techincaly part of the carrer tech program any how. As for it being notable for being next to the school why is it not notable the school is across from Standing Rock or caddy corrner to Franklin or that the students frequent the circle K during lunch down the road? By the way Jon please do not say you post something in a talk page then go and post it in the discussion page of the article, it makes it very hard for over readers to follow and to be able to see what feelings you are expressing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, we're talking about notability. Because Davey Tree is a notable subject (it has its own Wikipedia article) then it should be mentioned since it is adjacent to and visible from the campus. Now, if we had a lengthy paragraph about Davey Tree itself in the Roosevelt article, yes that would be irrelevant to this article. However, merely mentioning that the school is located next to its world headquarters is hardly irrelevant to the article, particularly in the section that describes the campus and its location. It's the same reason Stanton Middle School is mentioned.
Sorry to confuse you Talk page = discussion page. They are one in the same and are terms used interchangably whether they be for an article or a specific user. I erroneously assumed you already knew that. Many call them the talk page because its wikilink uses "Talk" (like in Talk:Kent, Ohio), but the actual tab says "discussion." --JonRidinger (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so how did TRHS get an urban forestry program? I simply asked the question; I did not try to make that claim in article space. Also, for the record, I don't appreciate your tone, nor do I appreciate how you and your fellow anonymous (and semi-anonymous) editors have been rules lawyering on this article for some time now. Why is it "notable" that TRHS is located in Kent? Or that it is located on North Mantua Street, next to Stanton Middle School? Simply, because these are landmarks with existing Wikipedia articles that help establish location. The Circle K down the road does not establish location, because although there is an article for Circle K, the Kent location (or should I say the N Mantua St location, as there is more than one Circle K in Kent) is not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia that would establish the location of TRHS. Come now, let's try to use some common sense. -- JeffBillman (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Im sorry if I came off a little to strong but I find it rather annoying that every edit good or bad Jon has to review within 12 hours and what ever he thinks of it is the final say almost every time. If you look at Jon's talk page I am clearly not the only one annoyed with his almost instant reverts. As for the anonymous edits im sorry I sometimes forget to log in and I really dont think that it should matter who edits the page all edits should be treated the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

{outdent} Well, I'm sure that Jon doesn't review every edit, just the edits of articles important to him; as I do. I'm a graduate of Windham High School, so of course Portage County topics are of interest to me. As for Jon, I think he's a graduate of TRHS. Anyway, as far as having the final say, I of course do have the ability to disagree with Jon, but so far it just so happens I've agreed with him. ;-) Wikipedia articles are built on consensus, and the fact that two established editors are in agreement tends to weigh heavily toward that being the consensus. Which leads me to why logging in is a good idea: Establishing yourself as an editor does lend credence to your edits, not only with us local folk but with administrators and other editors from outside the area, who actually are watching this article. What also helps is talking your edits through. Now, as far as the speed of edits, that kinda works both ways: I've noticed (and been irritated by) at least one editor on this article who was quick to ask for citations in this article, only to revert them when they were offered. I think if all parties would calm down a bit, we could all work together to improve this article. We're not in a race! -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Currency converters

Thanks to the anonymous editor who added modern-day dollar equivalents to the article. That was a good idea just to give an even more accurate picture of what it cost. I inserted a template which is set up to update the inflation every year so the "present-day" amount will always be accurate for the present-day and we won't need to update a year number the modern amount is referring to. I removed the Euro conversion first because it doesn't really apply here. Yes, Wikipedia is for more than an American audience, but it can only go so far in showing things in different rates. Once you add the Euro, why not the British Pound since a lot of English readers are British? What about the Canadian dollar? It just opens the door to get out of control. The other issue is simply that the conversion rates between currencies change daily and there is so far no reliable and simple template to insert that would keep it accurate without constant updates. It would basically be accurate only the day it was inserted. On top of that, the conversion from the 1955 and 1957 dollar rates to Euros wouldn't be accurate since it would be using today's exchange rate for 1955 and 1957 dollar amounts when the Euro didn't exist. Also, not a huge issue, but since the same anonymous editor seems to work at Roosevelt and is familiar with the Roberts Auditorium details (possibly a Tech Crew member?), do you have a seat plan that you could use as a source for the number of seats in the article? That would be great to have --JonRidinger (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Extracurricular activities

I again removed the vast majority of the details regarding the Latin club and the Ohio Junior Classical League. The details about membership dues and being part of the national level are irrelevant here. All that is relevant to the subject (Roosevelt High School) is that Roosevelt has a local chapter of the OJCL (the OJCL article, linked from here, explains the connection with the National level). Details on membership dues are not encylcopedic and most of what was there was directly relevant to the OJCL article or the club itself. Has the Roosevelt Latin club won anything significant that should be mentioned? If so, then of course we'd have a separate section on it (with sources of course). The reason athletics gets more coverage in this article (and in most) is because it's far easier to find reliable sources. Face it: athletics get far more coverage at a school and in a community than most anything else. Each athletic team mentioned in greater detail has won multiple leauge titles and/or has won at least one state title; i.e. notable accomplishments. Note there is nothing about tryouts, team members, or other minor details; just the main accomplishments and a few history tidbits where available. All have sources. Yes, the general extracurricular section does need expanded (as does the Academics section), but not with minor details about one particular club, especially a club which has no notable accomplishments that would merit inclusion in an encylcopedic article. This is not because of some bias to sports (I was in choir in high school, FYI), but more because of notability and finding reliable sources. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)