Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Proposal: Former Schools on County Navigation Templates

In templates such as Schools in Somerset and Schools in Hertfordshire there is a Former Schools category. I propose that this is removed and instead such schools are included within their 'type' category, e.g. here (please ignore the seperation by type of school, that is a seperate issue).

The other categories are all 'types' of schools, 'Former schools' can be any of these. Borrowing waggers compairson (on a seperate issue) this is is like categorising schools by the colour of their uniform and then adding a category for the school's age in the middle. The change will add information to the navigation templates by identifying the 'type' of the former schools, this can only be a good thing.

This will also reduce the vertical size of the templates (especially in areas with only one or two former schools).

Please add your comments/opinions. -- Flutefluteflute ^{Talk Contributions} 18:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think my support for this is clear! -- Flutefluteflute ^{Talk Contributions} 18:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

May I very politely point out, Flutefluteflute, that we have only just discussed this, in the recent thread Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#County Templates? I stand by what I said there (I'll sum it up as "losing the former section seems to me to make the navigation templates less useful"), and I agree with the comments of Dahliarose ("Former schools are better as a separate category") and Kanguole, who sets out our regular classification, including former schools and says "that seems a very useful organization." No doubt this new thread is prompted by my action yesterday morning in restoring the former schools section in the Template:Schools in Hampshire, referring when creating the new former schools section to the discussion here at WikiProject Schools. I'm quite puzzled. You said before you found the Hampshire template "unmanageable", which was why you wished it to be made so much more collapsible, but your approach calls for the words "Now closed" to be dotted at various points in the new multi-template, as they were... no, as they are, I see you have put the former schools back in other parts of the multi-template, as well as leaving the former schools section undisturbed. If, to keep Hampshire as it was until it was altered, the approach you are advocating needs to be adopted everywhere else, will all relevant editors wish to have "Now closed" at various points in their templates? This doesn't seem to me to have been thought through. Xn4 (talk) 05:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral - I don't really have a strong opinion on this. I can see that most people will probably be more interested in currently open schools only, so splitting former schools into a separate grouping does make sense. However, like current schools, there could be a lot of former schools in some areas, and in such instances, just like current schools, some subdivision may be required (ie. former primary schools, former secondary schools, etc.). waggers (talk) 08:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• The proposed scheme does show more information, but that also makes it more awkward, and less of a simple navigation aid. If the former school is a comprehensive, it will expand what is already the largest list in most of these navboxes. It also seems to me that the principal distinction for navigating is that between schools that are open and those that used to be. Kanguole (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Former schools should be in their own group. They are an interesting group but a list of say "Vomprehensive schools" would be too ummm comprehensive if it included all previous schools. Moreover former schools may include unusual and antiquated types like say a village "dame school" ... was that school comprehensive? You can avoid this question by having a different category. Victuallers (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have any particularly strong views over this issue to be honest. Another idea might be however that if former schools are placed in the type categories of active ones then to make the template look less awkward they could be simply be put only in italics and a note on what this means added to the bottom. This kind of idea is shown in this non-related template: Template:2008 Eurovision Song Contest entries. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Have to say I was concerned about this, but think that Camaron | Chris's seems like a very sensible approach that I would recommend adopting. Tafkam (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Victuallers. Former schools have to be listed in a separate category because for many former schools it will be impossible to classify them according to current school types. Take a look at Template:Schools in Derbyshire. Where for instance would you put Derby School under this proposed new scheme? It was once a grammar school but was also a comprehensive school. Do you then list it as a former school in both categories? What about the old National Schools which used to teach children right through until the age of 14? They have no modern equivalent. There are only three former schools listed in the Hampshire template and they might be best being merged with the content for the new schools which will replace them. From the reader's point of view the former schools are also much better as a separate category. If you're researching schools in Hampshire for your child you don't want the list to be muddled with closed schools which your child can't attend. I still think this new format for the Hampshire schools is clumsy. I think it would be best to have three separate templates for Portsmouth, Southampton and other schools in Hampshire, perhaps with a link to the other two templates at the bottom. Schools in Croydon have their own template for instance and are not all lumped together into a giant London template. Dahliarose (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As I have said I don't particular which system is used, they all have merits which vary depending on the composition of school types in a navbox a system is used for. As for Hampshire, I am happy with the current template, but I am happy for it to be split into three separate ones if necessary (with a new Hampshire school list article taking over on listing all within the county). Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Dahliarose's Derby School point is very helpful. I guess that many (perhaps even most) notable former schools in the UK are the schools established between the Middle Ages and the 20th century as grammar schools, but in their earlier centuries grammar schools generally took boys from the age of about eight, so they weren't then even clearly secondary schools. By the time the axe fell, almost all of them were purely secondary schools, although some had junior departments. Xn4 (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

School exemption for Criteria for speedy deletion A7 up for discussion

The Criteria for speedy deletion A7 says articles about organizations except schools which do not claim notability can be speedy-deleted. This is up for discussion. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Criteria for Speedy Deletion A7 if you want to participate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Closed as no consensus. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Opinions of User:Gnevin/schools wanted

Can you have a look at User:Gnevin/schools and edit or comment as you see fit Gnevin (talk) 10:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Mission statements

Didn't there used to be an agreement on excluding mission statements? As I recall, the logic was that they tend to be quoted in full and so are copyright violations, and that they tend to be useless platitudes that don't really inform readers about the schools. I don't see anything here about them. What's the current consensus, if any, on including mission statements? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's clear that it's a quote and it's not excessively long, then it's not a copyright violation and is, in fact, better to be accurate about it. If it's a useless platitude, then it should be removed with a good rationale. If it's added, there should be a good rationale. I don't think it's necessary to have a rule to exclude them. It could be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines that mission statements should only be added if they are of interest and inform the reader. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think mission statements should be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines#What_not_to_include. I find them to be unencyclopedic, POV, and almost completely irrelevant to the actual school. They fail verifiability because they are only published by the school, neutral point of view because they are not neutral, and no original research because their purpose is to promote the school. I'm not sure that any of the GA or FA-class school articles contain mission statements, and I wouldn't be surprised if GA/FA reviewers would always ask for their removal --Jh12 (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to see these mission statements, vision statements and other similar statements added to the list of what not to include for all the reasons outlined above by JH12. Dahliarose (talk) 13:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If you think it is such an impossibility that a mission statement be of interest, then go ahead and ban them but I don't find Jh12's rationales applicable. If a mission statement has some interest, and I agree that's surely rare, then WP:V is not an issue simply because it's self-published. WP:V#Using self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. There is no need for organisations themselves to have a neutral point-of-view, we simply need to report in a neutral manner. WP:NOR is not about advertising, it is about promoting unique, original theories and a mission statement is not for advertising, it defines the organisation's purpose, values, and informs its activities. DoubleBlue (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you find some examples of mission statements which you think are encyclopaedic? Most of the ones I've seen are very long, usually with lots of bullet points, and read like advertising copy. I don't see a problem with selectively quoting phrases from a mission statement, but I can't envisage any circumstances in which it's necessary to reproduce the whole thing. Dahliarose (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

There are times when a mission statement is useful, particularly if it's a special-purpose school, such as one that serves special-needs students. But for run of the mill schools or schools that every large district has one of, such as "typical" magnet schools, they typically aren't encyclopedic. Also, types of schools like Montessori or IB schools should have the mission statement for that type in the article about that type of school, if necessary. Because of the school's uniqueness - possibly the only one of its kind in a state of 20M people - I put the mission statement in Serenity High School. The article, complete with mission statement, was in DYN on December 4th of this year. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The example of Serenity High School seems to be quite acceptable. I suppose it all depends on what is meant by a mission statement. I'm sure I've seen some very long ones, possibly for Indian or Asian schools, which take up a lengthy paragraph. Perhaps we could at least put something in the What not to include section about restricting the length to a quote of no more than one sentence. Dahliarose (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm more interested in limiting the quote to the encyclopedic portions of the mission statement. If that's 3 words, fine, if it's 3 paragraphs, fine. But anything like "our mission is to educate students," "our mission is to serve the needs of students in insert geographic region here," or "our mission is to create responsible adults" is almost never encyclopedic, unless there's something different about this school compared to other schools with similar mission statements. Even the one-line Serenity High School mission statement would have to go if the school were not so unique, as the "one day at a time" and "transform" language would be common in addiction-recovery schools. I've worked on some articles for school districts and schools in Alaska, and some of them have some unique mission statements relating to how they serve the needs of Alaska Natives. Some of those are longer than one sentence. In one case, Yupiit School District, the mission statement was pretty bland and not terribly encyclopedic, but the fact that it was in the native language amplified the "Local control" section of the article, making it worthy of inclusion. Now, if every small-native-village school started doing that, it would become less encyclopedic fast. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps it would be appropriate to include a phrase in What not to include such as mission statements are rarely encyclopedic unless they are unique and inform the reader about the school in some way. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

RfC for WP:BOOSTER

There is a request for comment about whether or not WP:BOOSTER documents a standard consensus and good practice that all editors and school/college/university articles should follow as an official policy or guideline. RossPatterson (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Historical and statistical detail for Broad Run High School into Broad Run High School

Broad Run High School is a high school. It can't possibly justify two articles being written on it. If the historical and statistical detail in Historical and statistical detail for Broad Run High School is too much detail to go into the main article, it's also too recondite to go into an article of its own. -- The Anome (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Killara High School

Will someone please check the Killara High School i have significantly fixed it up with a bit more to go i think thanks (FastKarts (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You have unilaterally assessed the article as FA/High, above the signature of User:Victuallers (who actually rated it Stub/Low). If you would like to have the article re-assessed, you should list it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Assessment#Assessment requests. (I presume WP:AUS have similar arrangements.) Kanguole (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have re-assessed the article to speed things up and given it a quick clean-up but more work is needed. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page. Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project. No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work. Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 22:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Category talk:Elementary schools in Kentucky

Not sure what to do with the entry posted at Category talk:Elementary schools in Kentucky referenced version. It is a very strange way to create a new article. Dbiel ^(Talk) 21:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The request was also made at Template talk:Kentucky-school-stub. I left messages at User talk:74.129.224.35 and User talk:BettyStokes. Without any sign of notability or verifiability, I don't think we can create the article in its current state. --Jh12 (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As talk page entries, they are really out of place. Should they be deleted? Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Unregistered users do quite commonly place article on content talk pages to get around the current limitation that only registered users can create mainspace pages. Though you don't need to be auto confirmed to create pages, which makes BettyStokes' request stranger. The current proposed article content is not very encyclopaedic and I don't think a good article can be made out of it, so the content should probably be removed. I have worked out the school is in Jefferson County Public Schools (Kentucky) district, perhaps a bit of information could be added there. I have already fixed up the districts logo, which was previously deleted. Camaron | Chris (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. User:SriMesh has gotten involved and created an article at Trunnell Elementary School. Time will tell if it can be developed into an acceptable article. Dbiel ^(Talk) 15:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How to improve school article?

Firstly, I hope this is the correct place to discuss this question, but I think it is!! I've been working on Bromsgrove School for sometime now, on and off, but don't seem to be getting much help or indeed ideas from anyone else.

At the moment it is classed as a Stub article, but I'd like to improve this! Can anyone make any suggestions?

The Notable Pupils bit is being tidied up, and I will hopefully get some feedback off other wikipedians on my suggestions for this. Apart from that, anything anyone else can suggest?

--Nunners 21:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Plano Senior High School is a Featured Article and as such is one of the best school articles on Wikipedia. You might look there for insight. I removed the "stub" category, it was grossly inaccurate. I didn't have time to check to see if it rates a C- or a B-class, you might check yourself by looking at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Assessment then place the appropriate tag in the "class=" field of {{WPSchools|class=|importance=High|needs-infobox=no}} on Talk:Bromsgrove School. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

?

Is Trunnell Elementary School notable? Victuallers (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This clearly seems like not to me, but if you look at WP:SCHOOL it certainly seems to have the backing of secondary sources, so I guess officially 'yes' ?-- Lucas20 (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Head label broken in {{Infobox Secondary school}}

This template says that it is part of this project. On visiting a couple of pages that use the template, it seems to be broken around the head label. This also looks to have been reported at Template talk:Infobox Secondary school. It would be useful for someone to look and fix. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Lists in school articles

I've been doing a bit of editing of school articles and am seeing a ton of really long (scroll) lists of extracurriculars and athletic teams. Should these not be allowed unless it is mentioned why they are notable or is there a less obtrusive way of keeping this information? -- Lucas20 (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• My feeling here is that for the sake of readability, we have some schools that scroll, scroll, and scroll that we add a guideline specific to WP:SCHOOLS for making long lists horizontal. It makes no sense to gave good content buried below a two screen length scroll of every club at XYZ HS. It probably is more likely that a lot of the info may not be encyclopedic (not a directory), but the pervasiveness of this type of list makes that unlikely? Thoughts? -- Lucas20 (talk) 01:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Foo School, Foo High School, Foo Primary School, etc.

This isn't the usual "Foo School (placename)" disambiguation topic, this time it's schools with the same name but slightly different designations of the name, such as Foo Girl's School, Foo Corrective School, Foo Grammar School... I've started a topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Disambiguation of Foo School, Foo High School, Foo Primary School, etc. in case anyone might have some input on this. Fattonyni (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Worcestershire County Council involvement in school article editing

A Local Education Authority of the UK, Worcestershire County Council, appears to have taken note of Wikipedia and some school articles, and if the claims at User:Worcsinfo are correct, has asked an employee to improve some school articles. I ran into this when assessing The Bewdley School and Sixth Form Centre, which had some problems with it. The user is editing in good faith though I am little concerned for reasons that come apparent at Special:Contributions/Worcsinfo about if the edits he is making are in compliance with WP:V, WP:N, and WP:NPOV. The user is also uploading quite a lot of school logos without licences, sources e.t.c. which I am trying to correct when I can. I have talked to him via e-mail to welcome and also point out things like WP:OWN and WP:COI, I also mentioned I would bring up the actions of the LEA here. Involvement in school article editing by organisations has in the past resulted in unpleasantness, but this is not happening in this case. However, I thought it would be wise to bring the issue up here anyway given its potential significance with the user's plans. Camaron | Chris (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Notability" Crusader attacks High School Athletic Conference Navboxes

Hi Everyone,

The high schools in New Mexico had created a series of Navboxes listing schools by district alignment and competitive class (AAA, 4A, etc). These templates are under attack by one guy, but he has already managed to get two of them deleted. The debate is still ongoing for the largest template: [1]

These notability attacks can be directed against any school. Please contribute to the this debate. Your solidarity would be deeply appreciated. Greg Comlish (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello all WikiProject Schools Members

If you live in Northwest Louisiana and are attending Bossier Parish Schools Or Have ever attended Bossier Parish Schools please help edit the article with me, and maybe we can get it up to GA status

thanks --MyspaceMan12 (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

BoxCrawler Run

I'm planning to run BoxCrawler in the next couple days (He hasn't run since last summer). Please let me know if there are any issues once he gets started. Adam McCormick (talk) 06:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Project achievement

To those that don't watch WP:WPSCH, all articles tagged for this project have now been assessed at least a quality importance rating, and Category:Unassessed school articles is now empty. A thanks of course is due to all those that have helped, including the creator of the bot(s) which have been auto-assessing many articles. The work of the Assessment Department is far from finished however, there are 12,000 pages still in Category:Unassessed-importance school articles, many assessments will need to be updated, and quite a lot of school articles have probably not been tagged as part of this project yet as more are created daily. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)