Template talk:Schools in Buckinghamshire
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 | This template is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Thoughts
editAs Dahliarose has said at Template talk:Schools in Greenwich, "The red linked secondary schools would be best removed and only added once appropriate articles have been created." I agree with that. Redlinks in navigation templates seem to serve no useful purpose. I suggest that it would be better to include the blue links only and add new articles for notable schools as they are created, which is the norm in almost all such templates. Does anyone object to that approach? Xn4 04:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Most of the examples given in previous similar discussions appear to relate to templates that include primary or middle schools. This template is only supposed to include secondary schools which have a much higher chance of being notable and therefore having an article. I think that the red links should stay for the moment. ~ Scribble Monkey 09:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is no presumption of notability, see WP:N, and this is a navigation template, not a list of schools. Links to non-existent articles really do not help navigation between articles. Xn4 (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- If the placeholder redlinks are to be removed then perhaps the template should be brought in line with other counties and cover all schools not just secondary schools. I believe it has also been previously suggested that it should also include the currently separate Milton Keynes schools. ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 11:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Removed the redlinks and brought it in line with other counties. I'll wait to see what the consensus is on merging in the MK content. ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- For me, those are good improvements. Merging in MK also strikes me as sensible and consistent with the rest of this useful family of templates. Xn4 (talk) 06:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- There is no presumption of notability, see WP:N, and this is a navigation template, not a list of schools. Links to non-existent articles really do not help navigation between articles. Xn4 (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Inclusion of DCSF performance tables
editI noticed that most, if not all, of the Department for Children, Schools and Families performance table links within Buckinghamshire schools were no longer for the latest year. Instead of updating each school every year, I wondered if it would be acceptable to include the appropriate links for the whole LEA at the top of this template. The links would be as follows:
- Department for Children, Schools and Families Performance Tables (GCSE and equivalent) Buckinghamshire 2007
- Department for Children, Schools and Families Performance Tables (post-16) Buckinghamshire 2007
Any thoughts? ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)