Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Grammar clean-up

Hi folks!

Since early 2006, I've been running automated searches for common spelling and punctuation errors and fixing them using AutoWikiBrowser. Usually, at least 10% of all Wikipedia articles that need corrections come from the Pokemon WikiProject. They appear to have cleaned up their project a great deal, and now the majority of articles I find which need fixed are articles on high schools. In fact, it looks like more than 10% of all Wikipedia articles that need grammar adjustments come from the schools project. I usually check for combinations of words like "to it's" (which means "to it is"), "of it's" (which means "of it is"), etc. Either some major contributor on this WikiProject isn't aware that it's isn't possessive, or there are many individuals who aren't aware.

I realize that there are thousands of school pages to watch and fix, but these spelling/punctuation errors have been around long enough that they are showing up on Google searches, detracting from the overall quality of the encyclopedia. Anything you can do to improve these articles to an academic standard is greatly appreciated. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 23:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This project deals mostly with maintaining and improving such articles, most of them are written by students, alumni, or faculty of the schools themselves not by us. I assure you that this project does not have any grudge with the english language and whenever possible corrects these problems. As far as fixing them en masse, Isn't that the entire point of such a bot? Adam McCormick 04:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Adam. A bot can fix common spelling errors, but it takes a human to recognize when it's is meant and when its is meant. So while I can use the program to collect the lists of pages, and semi-automate the process, I have to do all the actual typing. Wikipedia has almost two million articles, and if 10% of all articles with these errors come from high school articles, then it is a huge problem. I realize the strain you all must be under just to maintain all these articles, but anything that can be done to help improve their quality would be cool, and there must be many more of you all than there is of me. ;) Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 05:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

There are currently 7924 school articles under WikiProject Schools with a large amount of them not often looked at by editors - so it's understandable that you find a lot of spelling errors in them. I can happily say I know the difference between there, their, they're and two, to and too and its and it's. I often go through articles to look for spelling errors and sections not following WP:Style; though I often don't notice some things. We can try in a friendly way to teach school article editors what these words mean - as it is very common for people not to know. Camaron1 | Chris 10:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could modify the AfD process so nominators have to clean up spelling and grammar errors before proposing deletion? That way the opponents could all concentrate on how worthless school articles are in general, without getting bogged down in typos and such.--Hjal 22:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Firsfron, where could we find a list of the articles (schools specifically if possible) that you've found? Adam McCormick 22:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't really made lists, though they can easily be made. AutoWikiBrowser has this cool function where lists of articles meeting the search criteria can be saved to Notepad. From there, they can be copied and pasted into any subpage. But it's just faster to correct them through AWB. One problem, though, is that AWB stops after collecting 1,000 pages which contain the search term. I rarely find less than a thousand pages with "to it's", "on it's", "by it's", etc., errors. I'm pretty certain I've corrected more than 10,000 articles. Within school articles, articles on Australian schools and Texas schools seem to be the most commonly misspelled and mispunctuated. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It is an important issue. But there are a number of competing objectives. If we are to get more non English schools and we are to increase our rate then quality.... may not rise. What we can do, in schools assessment, is to mention this as an issue when going from stub to start. There are few ideal editors and sometimes one "creative" will make good progress if watched over by "text police" <-- short hand ... no insult intended. We obviously cannot teach grammar and spelling and this should not be a barrier to contributing. I suspect that the top thousand schools are much better then they were a year ago and the bottom thousand are "abowte the same. Victuallers 09:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Could we perhaps provide some links on the Schools Project page to the various bots for correcting common mis-spellings so that school editors can use them if they feel so inclined? I've never tried to use any of these bots and I've no idea how they work. From the school articles I've seen spelling is in fact far less of an issue than lack of content. There seem to be thousands of stub articles which barely merit a Wikipedia page. Dahliarose 09:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser is really just a semi-automated bot. You can use it to gather lists (such as all articles within a category, or all articles containing a specific spelling error). It will automatically fix most Manual of Style issues, but it can't correct grammar by itself. The editor using AWB has to make the actual grammar corrections, and it does get a bit monotonous after the first few hundred corrections. I also recommend a high-speed connection when using it, since no one wants to wait for hundreds of pages to load. Anyone on the approved list can use it, and it is not at all difficult to use. There are automated grammar-bots, but they cannot tell when 'too/two/to' or 'its/it's'-type mistakes are made. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Question on telephone numbers

The "what not to include" section says not to list telephone numbers. Why then does the GB school infobox have a telephone (and fax) number box then? Tartan 23:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The infoboxes are completely unstandardized, you could remove the field if you'd like. There is active debate about including phone numbers on wikipedia, but it's best to err on the side of not including one. Adam McCormick 00:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for information the UK are currently working to standardise the UK school articles and {{Infobox GB school}} is the template that has been agreed for use, fields from the other templates have recently been added. The other templates will be deprecated at some point but that all takes time. Suggest you bring up any proposed change on the template talk page. Keith D 08:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on the GB template page to suggest that the telephone and fax numbers should be removed. I can't see any reason for including these details in an infobox, let alone in the content of a school article. Telephone numbers are constantly changing and are therefore difficult to keep up to date. In any case, the information will easily be found on the school's own website which will have a direct link from within the infobox. I'm sure I've come across a few American infoboxes which have telephone numbers included, though I can't now remember where I found them. Dahliarose 10:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that things like telephone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses are not needed in school articles - I have made this clear on the project page. However the schools address, schools website link and head teacher I would considerer fine. Camaron1 | Chris 11:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The infoboxes are not necessarily the creation of this project. Some of them involved the work and consensus of many users over months, and it seems like most of them include a cell for the main phone number. Phone numbers do not change frequently, at least not in the SF Bay Area. My high school has the same number that it had in the early-1960s; it hasn't changed since the 415 Area Code was assigned. For some elementary and middle schools, the phone number has been more stable than the school names (e.g., many changed to JFK, MKL Jr. or Chavez) or street address, and certainly more stable and longer lived than any web addresses. Finally, the infobox information is the most likely to be caried over into a CD-based version of WP. Poor or rural people who will use a CD on the village computer because they aren't online are unlikely to have any way to look up a phone number or mailing address for an English-speaking school.--Hjal 16:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The GB infobox template has now been changed by consensus to remove the telephone and fax numbers. UK numbers have changed many times in the last ten or twenty years, as have all the dialing codes. My understanding is that the CD version is only going to contain a small selection of Wikipedia articles and I would have thought that only the most well known and prestigious schools would be included (presumably our top and high importance schools), if any. The argument about the inclusion of telephone numbers for obscure elementary schools is therefore irrelevant. In any case the CD version hasn't yet been released. How do people in America without internet access currently find telephone numbers? Don't you have such a thing as old-fashioned paper telephone directories? Dahliarose 17:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, paper directories are used, but my local directory doesn't have numbers for a school across the country or world from me. But the CD wouldn't include them anyway so the point is moot. Adam McCormick 18:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So, are we going to have different infobox templates for "prestigious schools" and "obscure elementary schools"? That would be charming. In the U.S., calling long-distance information to get a phone number in another service area costs on the order of $1.00 where I live, so having the number avaibale for free is convenient, if, say, I wanted to call University High School in L.A. to verify the Jan and Dean story or find obscure (but verifiable) source of information about other notable grads and such. I could, of course, look up the number at the school's own website, as long as some other small group of editors doesn't decide to delete that portion of the infobox next month. I could find the number through Google, but I could find almost everything in the article on Google--why don't we save a bunch of bandwidth and only include material that isn't available online at all? More seriously, even though WP is not a directory, putting minimal contact information in the infobox seems pretty encyclopedic to me, at least for this kind of encyclopedia. One last point--many people trying to find my old high school's number by going to their website are going to have to sit for a full minute or more while the home page loads, thanks to some annoying graphics overload they have come up with to feature student art. I'm using IE6 on a nine-year-old Pentium, but I am on cable. How's a potential exchange student with a dialup connection at a pay-per-minute internet cafe in Chad going to deal with crap like that?--Hjal 04:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought there was a move to standardise the infoboxes as much as possible and certainly within countries. I've no idea what the current situation is with American school infoboxes. Presumably the question of telephone numbers will be discussed on the appropriate template pages, and telephone numbers could be included if there was a consensus among US editors. There seem to be numerous online telephone directories for America. Surely anyone with internet access who wants to find a school telephone number would look first in one of the numerous online telephone directories such as White Pages rather than looking at Wikipedia. The online directories are all completely free of charge from anywhere in the world, even in Chad, and telephone numbers are provided in a matter of seconds. Dahliarose 09:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to argue the point, this is hardly the forum. Wikipedia is not a directory is being applied this way accross wikipedia. If you want to argue the point I'm sure there's a villiage pump who would love to debate the topic. Adam McCormick 17:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

UK Infobox merger

(See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Archive 5#Merging UK Schools Infoboxes)

It's been about a month since this was suggested, and notices have been on the talk pages of the infoboxes in question all that time. There don't seem to be any objections, so shall I make it happen? The only information field that would be lost would be "Old pupils known as" from Infobox English Public School, but I'm not sure its important enough to be included in the first place. (chgallen 16:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

I'd have thought "Former pupils known as" might be worth including as other non-public schools have such associations. As for the title, are schools in Northern Ireland excluded? (GB excludes NI; UK includes NI.) Otherwise, let the deprecation proceed.-- roundhouse0 16:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no idea how Northern Irish schools are organised. If they can use the GB template, then it should probably renamed to be more inclusive. At the moment, "Template:Infobox UK school" is taken - I think we'd have to deprecate it and move the schools that use it to GB, before we could rename the GB template. If any of that made sense. (chgallen 19:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

Yes, that does indeed all make sense. -- roundhouse0 20:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've gone ahead and done it. I'll begin to move some of the schools using the other templates over to GB. (chgallen 17:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

I wasn't aware of this suggestion until today and would need to object to it, unless the merged infobox can give just as good results as Infobox English Public School, which may or may not be possible? I haven't found a way to use this infobox and leave out certain fields? For instance, independent schools do not have an LEA or an OFSTED number, both of which are included in Template:Infobox GB school, as they have no relationship with either. The free labels are always useful, of course. We certainly need the "Old pupils known as", but that can be put into a free label, so long as there are enough of them. Xn4 18:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If leaving out certain parameters is your only concern, it can easily be righted assuming there is some consensus to do it. This isn't a good reason not to merge the template however. Adam McCormick 18:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

For Template:Infobox GB school, the only required fields are name and country. The template dynamically adapts to fit with whatever combination of data is entered - i.e. when parameters aren't used, it either omits them completely (e.g. LEA for independents, Religious affiliation for secular institutions) or else adapts itself (e.g. {{{head_label}}} defaults to Headteacher when unspecified, "{{{lower_age}}} to {{{upper_age}}}" changed to just "{{{lower_age}}}+" when no upper age limit is specified.). That sort of thing. The infobox has been worded to try and be as inclusive as possible, thereby removing the previous need for numerous specialised infobox (due to the large variety of British schools) and giving UK school articles a bit of uniformity. So I think that the new infobox will give just as good results, if not (hopefully) better. Hope that answers your queries. There's quite good documentation with Template:Infobox GB school (if I do say so myself) which should answer most questions regarding its usage. (chgallen 18:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

Okay, chgallen, I have just tried an experiment with all fields left blank and none of them is defaulting to something I don't want. I'll look into this some more, if I may, and perhaps it will be all right, so long as there are enough free labels - three isn't enough, could it be six, please? Xn4 18:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course - feel free to experiment as much as possible. It'd be very useful to get some outside feedback. As for the free labels, I'm not really sure about that one. Three seems to be the norm (e.g. Template:Infobox School, Template:Infobox School3, Template:Infobox Secondary school). If schools are using more than three free fields, that suggests that the template is inadequate and should be expanded. Aside from "Former Pupils Known As" (which is useful, but only for a small number of schools) what other fields do you think Template:Infobox GB school lacks? Adding more free fields would just be a quick fix. (chgallen 11:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC))

I've moved all the schools and colleges from Template:Infobox College GB and Template:Infobox English Public School onto the GB School template and will continue with the merging over the coming week. Should these templates now be marked up for deletion? Thanks. CR7 22:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Just finished moving the schools across from Template:Infobox UK schools onto the GB School template. Anybody know about whether the depreciated ones should be deleted? Thanks, CR7 17:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC) The Template:Infobox UK school ones are moved too. I'll mark them up and if put a link to here for any objections. CR7 18:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I should announce it here:

Template:Infobox UK schools, Template:Infobox UK school, Template:Infobox College GB and Template:Infobox English Public School have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the templates' entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. CR7 18:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done -- that's some very good work there. Have a barnstar for your trouble! chgallen 12:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Getting bot approved

All, I'm trying to get a bot for tagging articles which need infoboxes and there has been a request for input from this project on what constitutes an infobox. Currently, the bot does not recognize certain templates after they have been subst'd and while I can't see any way around this it has been raised as an issue. Please weigh in at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/BoxCrawler#Test_run_review. Thanks very much! Adam McCormick 23:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Bot has been approved-ish and will run through all 8000+ articles tinight and into tomorrow. I'll let everyone know in the morning when it's finished. Adam McCormick 14:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Several articles have been listed as needing an infobox, but are not school articles; for example [First School]]. Is it intended that some form of infobox be created to cover all such articles, or can this parameter now be reset to 'no' following the bot's attendance? Tafkam 12:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

For the very few articles that do not need infoboxes (and do need ratings) the text "" can be added to prevent reclassification as needing an infobox. This should not be done on any articles that might actually need an infobox. The bot can and will be run again, so it is important that this maintanance is done. Adam McCormick 23:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Network of Sacred Heart Schools

I would like to request comments on Network of Sacred Heart Schools, specifically concerning the fact that it does very little to describe the Network and that it has become a rather bloated list. I am requesting assistance here because of the inclusion of this project's template on talk:Network of Sacred Heart Schools.

I have also made some comments on that talk page. [1] [2] Thanks! —Travis ^talk 16:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer Reviews

Wikiproject Schools doesnt seem to have a list of School-related peer-reviews? This would be very useful to people who are interested in reviewing school articles? Is it possible to get one? We might already have one that i dont know about? If there is one, please leave a link on my talk page. many Thanks. Twenty Years 09:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the useful but don't know how to get the ball rolling (nor would I have the time right now). For the record, there are several school-related Peer Reviews going on right now:

--Hebisddave 15:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Help

Hey! I have been working on the Blind Brook High School page...If anybody could take a look and give me some ideas/comments/suggestions on how to make it better, let me know. I have been trying to cite information. Thanks! Benje309 03:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I took a quick look and here are some things I noticed:

You have a large quantity of citations, for sure. Keep an eye on local newspapers and look for a local history book or two — sources unrelated to the district will help balance your list of references.
I recommend using citation templates, especially "cite web". Switching references over to templates like those will help by hiding the long URLs (that can cause minor display issues) and by providing more information about your sources.
Instead of citing separate pages for French Club, Italian Club, Book Club, etc, it may make more sense to just cite one page - the Clubs and Activities list by specifying a name attribute on the "ref" tag.
I think you said you're still adding citations, but many places could still use citations (for example, "'This is a school, not an art museum!'").
WP is very let-the-facts-speak-for-themselves. You should read through your article with a critical eye towards removing potential POV words. For example, using "lone" or "only" in the first sentence is probably the best way to say that there's only one high school in the district; using it in the second sentence ("only 82 students") adds a subjective viewpoint to the article.
On a similar note, WP is very just-the-facts. Phrases like "Blind Brook has also kept up with the digital times" and sometimes even things like "in addition" probably can be removed in favor of just stating the way things are.
It looks like some sentences have too many sidebar-type comments that detract from the sentences' main ideas: "To this day, the modular classrooms, or as they are often called, the portables (even though they can not be moved), are still used for daily classes and are fairly popular among the student body." & "A (non-merged) football team, albeit at the Junior Varsity level, was created, bringing football to Rye Brook after a long hiatus." Watch for these and look for ways to rephrase them or include the information in other sentences.
I'd recommend replacing "Blind Brook's Literary Achievers" with something like "Notable alumni" that makes their relation to the school clear (are they alumni? faculty? guest speakers?)
I get an overall feeling of there being a lot of information. I hate to say that any information should be removed, but I think a strong effort towards streamlining the information, making things more concise, and writing for the web might stop the overwhelmed effect that I felt. The History section and the first part of the Extracurricular activities section seem difficult to scan: there are few links and long paragraphs. The bulleted lists would help but the individual bullets are very long and it doesn't really seem to be a list so much as several paragraphs.
The Athletics section has enough raw data that I can't really draw any major points from it. It may be better to focus just on the highlights and achievements of each program; it probably won't be necessary to have specific yearly information for every sport or even all major sports. I personally like having Athletic information split up by sport (the same way that Clubs and Activities are split by organization), but that may just be personal preference.

You're doing well, and it's great to see a School-related article with so much content. Apologies if I suggested changes to anything you're particularly proud of; take my suggestions with a grain of salt. :) -Hebisddave 17:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I recommend adding an edit summary to every edit you make, even if you're the only one making edits at the moment. :) --Hebisddave 17:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And pictures, if you can! For a school, good ideas might include a snapshot of the front of the school, a satellite image of the school, and the mascot. I notice that Balboa High School (San Francisco) accentuates some of its architectural features and notable programs with pictures. Again personally, I don't think pictures of people (teams, principals, graduating classes, organizations, etc) make much sense on most school-related pages, but that's your call. Make sure you read through the Image-related help documents and find images that are legally suitable for use on Wikipedia. --Hebisddave 18:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to your comments on the relevant talk page (of the article) with my suggestions.

Maps?

Would maps showing the location of schools or school districts make a good addition to article pages? I was inspired by some comments from a peer review along the lines of "What information would be wanted by someone who doesn't know anything yet about your school/district?" It seems like a semi-obvious addition, but I never thought of it before today and don't recall seeing it on any Wikiproject Schools articles. I made a change to Template:Infobox School District that allows maps to be added; you can see it in action at Hurst-Euless-Bedford Independent School District. It probably needs tweaking, but it shows the basic idea I'm thinking about. The only counterpoint I can think of is that maps are also available by following a Wikilink to an article about the city in which the school/district is located (those same maps could probably be reused in most cases, as I've done at the HEBISD page). --Hebisddave 19:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Having looked at vast number of city articles in the last few days I know that they make a vital addition, but I'm not sure whether it would be practical to make maps to schools and it seems like there might be issues with the whole "Wikipedia is not a directory" thing Adam McCormick 20:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Done like Hurst-Euless-Bedford Independent School District I don't think it would be a problem and it makes the location easier to comprehend. Adam McCormick 20:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Standardising UK county templates

A number of UK counties have now developed county templates providing links to all the schools in their county. However, there seems to be a complete lack of consistency both in the format and naming of the templates. Take a look at Category:United Kingdom education navigational boxes and you will see that we have templates for Secondary schools in Berkshire, Education in Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire Schools and Schools in Somerset. Some counties allow red links and others don't. Some have primary schools and some don't. The categories for independent and public schools are also very confusing as the division is not very clear, and it has been suggested that these categories should be renamed independent and preparatory schools. Dahliarose 08:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the Derbyshire schools template it might be that 'public' implies boarding (or partial boarding) whereas independent does not have boarders (although the 2nd listed as independent turns out to be a boarding prep school for Repton, which is listed as public). I agree that a clear definition of independent and public is required. The TES (see school type, pull-down menu) divides the independent sector into Independent Preparatory and Independent Senior, which is clear (some schools will be both). -- roundhouse0 08:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I would propose Schools in XXX as the generic name. (Education would include Universities.) -- roundhouse0 08:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Independent school (UK) has a good explanation as to what constitutes an English public school - it seems that the school has to be a member of the Headmasters' Conference. A lot of the leading public schools now have day scholars as well as boarders. Your proposal seems much clearer and easier to understand. Public schools are government-run schools in most other countries so the terminology is very confusing for overseas readers. Dahliarose 10:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This is actually quite an important issue. Technically, all public schools should be called independent. Yet it's rare to hear of really old institutions referred to as anything other than Public Schools in the media. This doesn't only apply to these templates, but also for infoboxes. Consider Uppingham School and Marlborough College. I've referred to them in their infobox as Public boarding schools (with Public linking to Independent School (UK)) because even though technically they're independent, such schools are just normally called Public. Personally, when I fill out infoboxes, I try to mark those which are generally referred to as "public" as public, and those the same for "independent", while linking them all to "Independent school (UK)". But that's far from satisfactory. I'd really like there to be some wide discussion and a general consensus on use of this terminology.

But to the matter at hand, I agree that Schools in XXX" is probably the best generic name. (chgallen 11:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC))

I'n not sure the technology is stable enough yet to standardise templates. All the notts, Derby and Leicester schools is a lot of articles ... but its only three templates. They are all built off each other. I got someone clever to do Derbyshire (based on Notts) and I did Leicestershire (I think), but someone who knew more than me redid Nottinghamshire. So that has been the model I stole for the recent "Template:Education in Lucknow". I'm more worried that these are very easy to make and some articles end up with a ridiculous number. The clever ones fold themselves away and only roll out when requested. I have also seen some templates on Texas schools that leave the UK ones standing. If we are going to standardise then we need some experts. I'm not sure I/we know what we want. For instance when you click on "Education in Nottinghamshire" it takes you to a category ... should it be an article on "Education in Nottinghamshire"? Victuallers 20:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC) - corrected errors Victuallers 20:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. See Nottingham High School for example

As far as shiny formatting and the like I'd be glad to help if you can come up with a general format. I have no experience or opinion with this sort of template but the syntax is the same Adam McCormick 20:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection (alternatively) to using Template:Education in Nottinghamshire as a generic pattern (this does include the tertiary sector and does curl up on request). Category:Education in England by locality is also consistently named. I think "Education in XXX" would ideally take one to the article but if there isn't one the category seems to be a good choice. -- roundhouse0 21:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by the idea of the shiny collapsible Texas templates. Can anyone find an example? Dahliarose 21:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Dallas ISD has a nice template: Template:Dallas_ISD but it doesn't really collapse. At the bottom of the Dallas ISD article, though, there are collapsible templates: Template:Texas and Template:Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. --Hebisddave 22:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

For standardising the design of these templates, can I recommend using {{Navbox generic}}? It's flexible, its design has community consensus, and it delivers "view • talk • edit" functionality and automatic collapsability without having to code it for each County template. Template syntax is also much easier to deal with than table markup. — mholland (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes it appears that there are only a few people on Wikipedia! Yes the Dallas one is an example of the template I thought was really good. Its main feature is that is doesnt list 999 diferent junior schools ... but you can see them if you want. What it lacks that I have seen as good is the "v-d-e" keys and the ability to collapse and a top title cum hyperlink .... these are all in Navbox generic. So all that I have seen is there apart from a county flag logo. So. I'm not sure if this is a "spec", but maybe I have to take my pessimism earlier. Maybe we can build something good .... or can Alanby? or someone ... and can we agree it? Well done, I'm heartened by the cooperation on this thread today. Victuallers 22:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand all the ins and out of these templates but I like the look of Template:Texas and Template:Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex. The orange is rather garish on the first two. I don't think we have county flags but we could perhaps include a pic of the county coat of arms which might look rather impressive. With these different template types is there any way we can collapse the individual segements of the box (so that we could hide primary schools for instance but keep all the secondary schools visible)? Dahliarose 23:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

We should be able to put hide tags within the larger template, we could even put a wrapper around the {{Navbox generic}} that would suit your needs. Adam McCormick 23:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what hide tags are but I'm sure it will be fine. Where do we go from here? Presumably we need to decide on the parameters to be included in the box? Would it be best to start a new page Template:Schools by English County (or whatever we want to call it) with an associated talk page where we can discuss the types of school to be included and the precise format? Dahliarose 19:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussing it would be a good idea. Unfortunately CR7 appears to have leapt in without any discussion and done a lot of work recategorising Buckinghamshire schools as secondary moderns, a term which is never used in Bucks. ~ Scribble Monkey 09:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I created four (which is nearly half) of the present UK templates, viz. Derbyshire Schools, Norfolk Schools, Wiltshire Schools, and Schools in Somerset, using a simple format. They have wandered apart as others have re-formatted them.

On independent schools in England, the split Independent (senior) and Independent (preparatory) (per TES) looks good to me. No one will kill the term public school as used in most of the UK, but it has hidden depths and isn't needed in these templates, even though I put it into some myself.

If the template design is to be standardized, I like mholland's recommendation of {{Navbox generic}}, with the view • talk • edit and auto-collapse. But making and editing these templates is time-consuming. I don't know that those who will do the work of creating the county templates we don't yet have can be made to use a particular format, and I don't know who will police the system if it is to be policed?

Schools in Borsetshire is a good standard title for England, but Education in Borsetshire also has advantages. (I'm not sure what geographical units are suitable for Scotland, but I suspect it may be the Scottish regions rather than the historic counties?) I don't see the point of shutting universities and colleges of higher education out of these county boxes. Their number is pretty small compared with schools ('schools' as understood in the UK, of course), so if they are to have a separate system of navigational boxes can anyone suggest what shape it should take?

I don't see any point in including redlinks to non-existent articles, as these templates are essentially navigational aids and not lists of schools.

On the suggestion of 'a pic of the county coat of arms', Scribble Monkey added one to the Buckinghamshire Secondary Schools template, and Mholland removed it per WP:NFCC#9 ("Non-free content is used only in the article namespace; it is never used on templates") Xn4 12:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Redlinks

I see CR7 has added a lot of red links to the Norfolk Schools template, which I created. No doubt it took quite a bit of time and effort.

I said above "I don't see any point in including redlinks to non-existent articles, as these templates are essentially navigational aids and not lists of schools", after Dahliarose had commented "Some counties allow red links and others don't."

It would be better, perhaps, to have a consistent approach. What views do other editors have on red links in navigational templates, please? Xn4 18:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to put forward my apologies if it's a mistake, it appeared that some templates I'd been converting to the 'navbox generic' template had red links and others didn't. Until I read above I was unaware that there was a discussion going on as to which template to use so I've used the 'navbox generic' as a standard for most of the templates. When I got to the Norfolk template I decided to add the missing links because it stated 'None on Wikipedia' under the special schools section. Once again, I'd like to apologise for the mistakes I've made. CR7 18:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that redlinks (If they follow WP:NC(S)) help make sure that articles are correctly placed. That said, I think if the county template included a link to a list of schools in the county, then it wouldn't be necessary to place redlinks in the template. Adam McCormick 18:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There are lists of schools in counties but when an article name gets updated they are often left with the old page name on. They can be difficult to find too. The red link names that clashed did follow WP:NC(S). It's my opinion that red links help to encourage new articles, even if they are only stubs.CR7 18:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Red links in and of themselves are not always bad. With schools, they should only be used when the school is notable and likely to get an article. Adding red links for other schools is an invitation to another AfD debate. As to the template in question, these should be written to not break the school names on multiple lines. Vegaswikian 20:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps adding red links for notable schools only is a fair compromise - it might have the advantage of bringing forward stubs for the missing articles. But I can't help thinking it would be an invidious or even a hopeless task to decide in advance, on a job lot basis, which schools are notable and which aren't. That leaves me, on balance, preferring to make red links the exception rather than the rule. Xn4 22:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible new model?

On another matter, CR7 and I between us have now got Schools in Berkshire into a shape which may be in line with the consensus of this discussion. Is this a good model? Xn4 22:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this looks good. Two things: (1) Is it intended that the grammar/sec mod/middle sections are simply omitted for the majority of authorities which do not have these types of schools? (2)Is it intended only to include middle-deemed-secondary schools (on the premise that they fall under the secondary notion of presumed notability, and thereby not include those deemed-primary for the complementary reason? Tafkam 23:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts: (1) That would certainly be my way of seeing it. Where there aren't schools to go into any section, the section would best be left out, as an empty section would serve no purpose and might mislead. (Of course, all counties used to have grammar schools: where the schools are now comprehensives, they would go into that section, and where they no longer exist, they would go neatly into 'Former'. (2) I should simply see any notable middle schools going into 'Middle'. Whether a middle school is notable is more complicated than whether it's 'deemed secondary', isn't it? Xn4 03:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it should include Independent (preparatory) schools; aren't they the equivalent of primary schools, and surely we don't want to include all of those? Personally, I also think red links should be included, if this structure is to be used, otherwise some sections could contain one or two schools, and look rather empty. However, for some areas there may be just be a Comprehensive section, which would look equally odd. Finally, I assume that this is at LEA level, which isn't always a county? ~ Scribble Monkey 09:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

On Independent (preparatory) schools, I think your comment may be more about notability than about inclusion in the template? It would be invidious to exclude any schools if notable, and if non-notable someone can challenge the existence of their articles. From your first comment, I think what you say about red links may mean you support red links to notable schools? Lastly, on LEA areas, I see three main problems: (1) independent schools and some others do not relate to LEAs; (2) counties are widely recognized, at home and abroad, but even in the UK many people do not know where the boundaries of their own LEA is; and (3) LEAs are inclined to change: a few days ago, on 25 July, the DCLG announced the creation of nine new unitary authorities, all to be LEAs. Xn4 11:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the red links question is crucial to this. Are these templates supposed to reflect lists, such as List of schools in the South East of England, or categories such as Category:Schools in Berkshire, or something in between? Categories will only contain existing articles, and the lists are being compiled to contain red links or unlinked entries to known schools, which do not have articles. Personally, I think we should adopt either the list or category format, as although they both have problems, it is clear and unambiguous, whereas deciding on a school's notability is somewhat subjective.

My concern with including preparatory and primary schools is that the templates will become unmanageable if we follow the list format, but we could split down to a secondary school template and a primary school template. If we follow the category format, some templates could be very sparse and contain only one category. Also, it increases the likelihood that an article will be created and not added to the template, resulting in more maintenance.

Finally, I agree that organising the schools by ceremonial county is preferable, but then I would suggest that we need to be consistent where Reading School, for example, appears within List of schools in the South East of England, Template:Schools in Berkshire and Category:Schools in Berkshire. ~ Scribble Monkey 14:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Have to say that I'm inclined to agree that primaries/preps would become unmanageable even where only a small proportion of schools have articles; however, it does also seem that if we don't include them, we need to consider whether the title of the navbox should recognise that. I notice that since I went away, changes have been made to the suggested exemplar Berks template to include primaries! Tafkam 18:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just got back from holiday too and was surprised to see that the primary schools had been added to the Berkshire template. I agree that potentially the template could get out of hand, but I don't imagine that too many primary schools and prep schools will merit an article. Perhaps it might be best to include the primaries as at present and split the template into two in the future if the box gets out of hand. I personally don't like red links in these templates. It would be quite impractical and unnecessary to include red links for all primary schools. I think it's probably more of an incentive for people to create an article if they see that their particular school is missing from the list. I agree that it's preferable to organise the schools by ceremonial county. I'm not sure if ScribbleMonkey was proposing that the List of Schools in the South East of England should be re-organised into counties rather than education authorities. I did wonder if we should in fact be categorising schools by education authority as well as by county. Dahliarose 20:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Alumni

Should alumni have references stating that they (the person) attended the school? Twenty Years 05:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If they have an article about them, which gives referenced information about their school career, then I'd have thought not. If they don't have an article, then they must be referenced. It's a bummer, but Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons says you shouldn't really say anything about anybody living, without referencing it. I'm not entirely sure about dead people though. (chgallen 09:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC))

I agree chgallen here in that they need to be referenced somewhere. I would add though that the school's website, while a useless reference for most things (WP:COI, etc...) would be a good reference for whether the alumni attended, though not whether the alumni are notable which is another debate entirely. Adam McCormick 14:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I found Why sources should be cited helpful. In practice, very few wikibiographies so far seem to have a specific citation to verify the subject's education. I've just referenced the list of Old Derbeians and made a start on the longer list of Old Greshamians. I think it's a useful exercise? Xn4 12:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Phone numbers revisited

I've just read through last month's discussion. Does anyone else here feel that inclusion of school phone numbers makes the infoboxes look like classified ads? Is there an historic rationale behind including them? I ask because including them seems, as others have pointed out, to conflict with WP:NOT#DIR, especially the bit about Wikipedia not being "a resource for the conduct of business". They are also a prime target for vandalism. Observations? --ROGER ^TALK 19:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I am in two minds about this. I think it would be usefull, but only for the conduct of business, which as you have pointed out is not allowed on wikipedia. If anyone wants to contact the school, there is normaly a very obvous 'Contact Us' link as soon as you click on the webpage. As you also say, it would also be a huge target for vandalism. Tiddly Tom 19:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of removing phone numbers from School project infoboxes (and articles). I agree with the already stated reasons (WP:NOT#DIR, schools post their preferred contact information on their websites, target for vandalism). Also, it seems like you'd just be setting schools up for prank phone calls (even though the phone numbers are already available online elsewhere). --Hebisddave 20:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen (and been on) both sides of this. The best argument for keeping them is that it helps readers research the school without having regular access to the internet. My argument would be that it is no different than providing a web address, or an adress, or an e-mail adress. If consensus is to get rid of phone numbers, not just lists of numbers like it is now, the same rationale should go to all of these. Adam McCormick 01:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Question Where do you get the idea that it is only lists of numbers that are against policy? (Email addresses are similarly against policy.) The school infoboxes are the only place on Wikipedia where I've seen phone numbers included. --ROGER ^TALK 05:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No Phone Numbers Typically, in wikipedia articles there is a section called external links, which will more than likely have the schools website. The schools website is 99.9% of the time have the schools phone number. Aside from the truth that it probably isnt needed, is it encyclopedic? No. Twenty Years 08:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply I get the idea from the definition of the word directory "A list of names, addresses etc., of specific classes of people or organizations, often in alphabetical order or in some classification". Wikipedia is absolutely not meant to contain lists of contact info or directory entries, nothing in WP:NOT#DIR says that there can't be any inclusion of contact information. But when it comes down to it I don't think phone numbers are encyclopedic, but neither are email addresses, or street adresses, but they're given all the time. Adam McCormick 13:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. You take that paragraph to mean that lists of phone numbers are unacceptable but individual ones are? I don't entirely agree with that interpretation as it goes one to state, in an example (a radio station), that the phone number should not be given. This injunction is repeated further down when it talks of hotels. On the broader consensus, in my (rather limited) experience, articles giving contact information are often deleted as spam.
But, to move on, I think we both agree that phone numbers and email addresses are unencyclopedic and should not therefore be included in school infoboxes/articles. Is that accurate? --ROGER ^TALK 14:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We do indeed agree on that point, I just don't see it in the guideline. Adam McCormick 14:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

* I agree also, all though I beleve that street names should be given... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiddly Tom (talk • contribs) 16:58, 25 July 2007