Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 20

Apprentice assessor to Experienced assessor

After a thorough review of Loopla (talk · contribs), I believe she now has the experience nescessary to be moved to the experienced group of assessors at WP:WPSCH/A. Thoughts? Five Years 07:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Concur. She seems to be doing good work. I haven't reviewed her work as in depth as you have, but a random sampling of her edits seem on the up and up. Calebrw (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This has been here for over a week, with no objections. I have moved Loopla to the experienced group of assessors. Five Years 18:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

A user has asked that I refrain from adding disambiguation links to an article page: this one in particular. His argument is that Franklin High School (New Hampshire) is not an ambiguous title and doesn't require a disambig link. I have to disagree. The base name "Franklin High School" refers to well over a dozen schools in the United States alone. And the disambiguation link at the top of the article allows a person to return to the main disambiguation page, regardless of where you came from. When I Google "Franklin High School," the first page from Wikipedia is for the Franklin High School in New Orleans, not the disambiguation. It's been my practice to add disambiguation links to every school article linking from a disambiguation page. Is that incorrect? I will cross-post this at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation --Jh12 (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a good point about google. I've never really had much of an issue with that, however it does make sense that some non-base-name articles will appear first. I've always wondered about weather or not to include Template:otheruses for those articles, and I'd be interested in hearing other people's inputs. Should we base the decision on Google? I'm really surprised I haven't found any documentation on where this should be used. --Dan LeveilleTALK 22:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree. In the case of Franklin High School, someone could easily search to find Benjamin Franklin High School or Matt Franklin High School or any other type of high school. Calebrw (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the pages should link back to the dab page if only because some hapless newbie might click a link that says Franklin High School and find a school other than the one to which they thought they were going. But as far as google is concerned, Wikipedia uses a tag that prevent it from contributing to search relevancy (to prevent spammers) so that logic doesn't make sense. Adam McCormick (talk) 01:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree All such articles should have a disambiguation link at the top. I don't understand the Google comment above. I think that the issue is that the Google search system frequently puts Wikipedia articles on high schools on the first page of results, and unless a user checks the web page address before clicking through, they are quite likely to end up at the wrong high school article. Somebody just added a dab link to Sir Francis Drake High School, which has a unique name, and I agree, since there are other Drake High Schools that include different first names in their formal titles.--Hjal (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Just for sake of random interest the tag I talked about is called a Nofollow tag Adam McCormick (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hemel Hempstead School

Hello there. Being a student of the school, and willing to increase my Wikipedia experience, I was thinking of 'adopting' the Hemel Hempstead School article, bringing it to GA-class at least. Does anyone have any tips or pointers I should know before I get started? Thanks - Weebiloobil (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles at GA and higher all have references, preferably from published and reliable sources. One strategy could be to gather as many sources as you can and building the article around them; you would automatically satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability. Reliably sourcing information will also help you avoid a conflict of interest.
For tips on content, the information on our main page is great. You will want to look at the good article criteria and other school articles at Category:WikiProject Schools articles by quality for ideas and direction. Also, remember that this can be a long process so don't get discouraged. The article will still be here waiting for improvements years from now. --Jh12 (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Project template

Our assessment template (Template:WPSchools) currently has 3 other redirect templates linking to it; Template:WikiProject Schools, Template:WPSchoolAssessment & Template:WPSchoolsAssessment.

I propose that we delete Template:WPSchoolAssessment & Template:WPSchoolsAssessment as they are both not transcluded (and are not going to) from any articles. Template:WikiProject Schools should be kept, as this is commonly used by people that dont know it is transcluded. What does everyone think? Five Years 06:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, the other two are just not needed and only add to confusion when searching. Dbiel (Talk) 06:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree. My bot has removed all references (or all that existed at the time) to the alternates and I will run it to fix the last of them now. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree. In addition, could all references to the WPSchool(s)Assesment be removed from the official documentation on WPSCHOOLS? Thanks, Calebrw (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Removed. From the assessment page's instructions section. Calebrw (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, since this seems to be a non-controversial issue and the author of both pages has agreed to deletion, I have deleted Template:WPSchoolAssessment and Template:WPSchoolsAssessment. Camaron | Chris (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Hell, i thought no-one looked at this page! Checked back today because I was bored expecting no response! Five Years 12:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Unassessed school articles

The backlog is now under 1500 articles. A big push by the assessment team could see this wiped out by the end of the month. Good work to everyone whos been assessing articles. Five Years 16:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing as many as possible as quickly as possible, but there are more than me out there, someone has done at least 150 since I last assessed. Good work. Calebrw (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
1300. Let's keep up the good work. Calebrw (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a couple of articles starting with "R" left, once those are completed, we can work on the letter "S", which has some 600-700 articles, and were more than half way through the backlog. good work everyone. Five Years 13:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
1100 Keep it up. Five Years 14:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Though it is not important, we are also close to meeting a numeric milestone of 20000 assessed school articles, currently the number is 19838 assessed. Quite an achievement for the project when we reach it. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Another big milestone, weve got less than 1000 articles left to be assessed for class. Good work. Five Years 15:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Make that 900. Five Years 16:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow. I wish I could do more assessments, but I've been so busy with other projects. Calebrw (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I am as well to be honest, but I cycle around projects so I will do more assessments in time. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment guidelines

I have been working to complete the list of Category:Schools in the United States by state for those states that do not have a category in this parent category. The current status of my work can be found at User:Dbiel/Category:Schools in the United States by state I have been adding the project tag to any school category that does not have one as well as adding it to school articles that I am re-categorizing. I have been adding an assessment to those articles that are clearly below C class (stub and start) but have found it difficult to find any project specific guidelines for setting the importance. Are there any such guidelines?

Granted, there are not absolutes; but generally speaking can we say the following:

  • Elementary Schools = low
  • Middle Schools = low
  • High Schools = mid

I would not consider down grading any article myself, but for articles that have no template or have not been graded and fall in the stub to start range, would it make sense to use the above guide line? Dbiel (Talk) 03:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No. As a member of the Assessment Team, I have assessed literally hundreds of school articles and no one article is the same. I rate importance based on the unique attributes of each article. If an article is for a school that is 500 years old, with two alumni, I might rate Mid, but if it had 10, I might put High, and if it has hundreds, I might say Top. An article for a school that is less than a hundred years old with no listed notable alumni, whether or not it is high school or not, will always be Low. In short, always look for different factors for each article: Alumni, special or unique programs, being the first to do something (i.e. Online classes), proper references to alumni, whether or not the school is high on a list (Newsweeks's top 1300 schools, highest number of students in the country) or similar, Prominent teachers: if Stephen Hawking, Georg Solti, Yo-Yo Ma all teach there, it might be one of the best schools for Physics and Music. Either way, you just need to learn from doing. Every Assessor has a different style and may rate things differently. I rated something Mid and another rated the same article (with a few minor edits) High. It all depends on a lot of things, most of which are hard to put into words. Calebrw (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. It does help. Which is better to do if one is in doubt as to the importance level, leave it blank or take ones best guess and post it on the project page? As an example, I have set the following two articles to mid level importance, Mar Vista High School and Southwest Senior High School; would you agree? Dbiel (Talk) 18:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
No, in my book they are both Low. That's not any more impressive than most schools. A few more alumni, with references, and an explanation of who they are and why they are important and Mid would be acceptable. Calebrw (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I did start to compile a page some time ago but we never got around to finalising it. The page is here: User:Dahliarose/Sandbox_2. I suggest we could work on this again and incorporate it into the assessment page. We would of course need to include an example of the new C category. Primary schools/elementary schools and middle schools would normally be classed as of low importance. There might be a few exceptional schools which would require a higher ranking. High schools/secondary schools should NOT automatically be classed as of mid importance. There are hundreds and thousands of schools around the world and the vast majority will be of low importance. All assessments for schools of high importance and top importance should be listed on the assessment page for other assessors to check. Top importance schools are also listed on the main WP Schools page if everyone agrees with the rating. All assessments can be challenged. If in doubt about an assessment put your assessment on the assessment page and ask for a second opinion. It's best to rate lower rather than higher in the first instance, especially if an article is short, as this encourages people to improve the article. Dahliarose (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies, they are a big help. I did not want to set them too low. Since I am basicly only working with stub and start quality articles, the low priority should work in nearly all cases. If in doubt, I will post them to the project page. Thanks again. Dbiel (Talk) 19:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration

I think we should to change Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools#Collaboration_of_the_month to just "Collaboration." It's understandably difficult finding the time or motivation to work on the collaboration schools, especially those foreign to an editor, and I don't know that there are enough active editors to create a proper collaboration department. I did add an image and source to Santa Fe Indian School, a place I suspect may have an interesting history. Also, Cullman High School recently had various images removed and someone drive-by tagged it to death. The tags address valid points, but I removed some as excessive. Also, there does seem to be a small GA push on King's School, Ely right now, so you may want to see if there are any glaring issues and if anything on the latest peer review can be addressed. Thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well this does not seem to be updated every month in practice, and I don't think this project is quite large enough for a massive improvement drive to be done to five articles every month. So just calling it collaboration and updating it when the suggestions are available and when the current articles listed have been improved makes sense to me. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I know ive probably missed the boat regarding this discussion. How about having one or two articles for collaboration each month, five is just too much, which means we are spreading ourselves too thin. Five Years 16:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment guidelines ready and missing top importance schools

If no one has any objections then I think the draft assessment guidelines at User:Dahliarose/Sandbox 2 can now be added to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Assessment page. Can anyone work out how to change the links so that they point to the school article categories rather than the general A, B and C class categories? Also does anyone know what's happened to our top importance school articles. Lots of them (eg, Eton College and Harrow School are now missing from the category even though they have been correctly classified as top importance. Dahliarose (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the category links. I'm still checking, but it seems our {{WPSchools}} project banner is not adding articles to their importance category when they are assessed as Stub or Start class. You can tell there's something odd from the statistics table. Only one article in Stub and Start are in an importance category. --Jh12 (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: According the worklists here and here, the last two articles in question were Talk:Langley School, Loddon and Talk:Freeston Business & Enterprise College, and it looks like the assessment bot simply hasn't removed their importance assessment yet. So our template definitely isn't adding Stub and Starts to their importance categories --Jh12 (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I think I have a solution. See the template's talk page --Jh12 (talk) 16:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem seems to be affecting old assessments too. Eton College was assessed some time ago as top importance but the top importance category now seems to be missing altogether from the school's talk page. Has the BoxCrawler bot perhaps somehow removed the importance category for lots of school articles in a recent housekeeping run? Dahliarose (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
What I believe happened is that we recently made a change to the project banner to make importance disappear for non-article pages, and accidentally included Stub and Start-class articles. Once we adjust the banner, Wikipedia will automatically add the categories back (there may be a slight delay due the number of pages involved). The official Wikipedia editorial bot will then begin to update the statistics table on its next run. As far as I know, User:BoxCrawler isn't involved. Best, --Jh12 (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure it will all get sorted in time. The editorial bot only seems to update the log every three days or so. In the meantime I've now updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Assessment page with the quality examples and importance notes. The page is now rather bloated. I'm not sure what the procedure is but wondered if someone might be able to archive the old assessments and move them on to a new page so that the page doesn't take so long to load. Dahliarose (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I have just changed the template in the way Jh12 suggested, it will take a while for the changes to show through. If any other fixes are needed please indicate them on the template talk page. Camaron | Chris (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Notable alumni

Where do we draw the line regarding notable alumni?

Example University of San Diego High School

  • Chris Lansing (2005) - co-inventer of the self-sharpening pencil.
  • Ben House (2005)- co-inventor of the self-sharpening pencil.
  • Ryan O'Connor (2005) Winner of the Sperrazo Leadership Award (2006) and CIF champion.
  • Kellen Dammann (2005) 4 time Suzuki Rock-and-Roll marathon Champion

Dbiel (Talk) 23:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO, there should be a citation indicating that the person went to the school and is notable for the reason noted. Alanraywiki (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. There should be a citation for as many of them as possibe - even moreso if the person is particularly notable (e.g., Cameron Crowe), as the likelyhood of mis-identification is higher. RossPatterson (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
That stuff sounds like vandalism to me. The self-sharpening pencil was patented in 1954 and again in 1976, long before those guys were born :-) RossPatterson (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the replies. I have deleted the entries. Dbiel (Talk) 04:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Any alumni notable enough to have their own articles obviously pass the notability test. But I believe the bar should be lower for inclusion in these sorts of lists than for articlehood. When List of Stuyvesant High School people came under the knife over at the Village Pump a few years ago (see the archived discussion), the instigating user suggested deleting everyone who didn't have an article. One of the interesting comments was "There are people on this list who I am amazed do not have articles. Andrew Streitwieser, Jr. is one". In the end, nothing happened, but I think Simon12 summed it up best with his comment:

This makes no sense. Notability is a requirement for an article. Since when is notability a requirement to be mentioned inside an article? WP:BIO refers to guidelines for people to merit their own article, not for mention in another article. If we change the word "notable" in the article to "prominent" or some other word, would that make things more acceptable? I would not be in favor of reducing the list to meet the Wikipedia Notability guidelines. (If there is Wiki policy that concerns "notability" of items inside articles or lists, please post specific links and quotes. Someone above mentioned some items in WP:NOT. Please be more specific)

RossPatterson (talk) 04:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right about notability be different for articles vs people listed as notable alumni. It probably would make sense to change the term from notable alumni to prominent to avoid using the term "notable" in two different ways. The question that started this topic could have just as well used the term prominent instead of notable. It is the same issue. Where do you draw the line. Students who have graduated in the last 3 years are not very likely to be truely prominent. Of cource, there are always exceptions. Dbiel (Talk) 04:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, "prominent" vs. "notable" just gets into semantics and wiki-lawyering :-) And you're absolutely right - becoming "listworthy" usually takes more than a few years, unless you're an actress (e.g., Lucy Liu (Stuyvesant 1986)) or you wear a Halloween mask and bring a rifle onto campus (e.g., Omesh Hiraman (Stuyvesant 2007)). RossPatterson (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
As you have said, "listworthy", "prominent", "notable" all just gets into semantics. What ever term you use, the key thing we need to remember that is is not the same as notability; but there still needs to be some sort of minimum standard. Dbiel (Talk) 20:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject notification bot

There is currently a proposal for a bot that would notify WikiProjects when their articles have entered certain workflows, e.g. when they are nominated for deletion or for Good article reassessment.

The question is whether a relevant number of wikiprojects would be interested in using such a bot. You can find details of the functionality, and leave your comments, at the bot request page.

I am posting this message to the 20 largest WikiProjects (by number of articles), since they would be the most likely users. Thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Bell Schedules

Bell Schedules seem to be one area of significant conflict and should be address by this project. They have been included in many articles, they have be deleted as being non-encyclopedic by numerous editors. It would appear to me that they may fall into the following category:

Trivia which is only of interest to pupils in the school (such as daily lunch menus, location of the toilets, a room-by-room description of the school facilities).

If this is the case, we should add bell schedules to the list of items not to include; unless they should be included, then that should be noted as well. Dbiel (Talk) 22:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What are bell schedules? Are they connected with bell-ringing in churches? Dahliarose (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Example of Bell Schedule Oak Avenue Intermediate School#Bell Schedule, incase it gets reverted again older version
It seems to be another phrase for a school timetable. I suggest we add school timetables/bell schedules to the list of items not to be included. Dahliarose (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Since there is currently no mention of timetables/bell schedules on the project page, and the fact that they are used on numerous school pages; I would agree that we should add "school timetables(bell schedules)" to the "What not to include" list in the trivia section. Dbiel (Talk) 23:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Dahliarose, bell schedules are system of tones (or some other sound, sometimes a school bell) which rings or sounds to note the beginning or end of a period, or some other indication of time. Different schools use different systems. For instance, a bell may ring at 8:00 to denote the start of a class, then another ring at 8:55 denotes the end of the period. A ring at 9:00 denotes the start of the second period, and so on. In some schools with a Modular system (popular in America during the 60s-80s and somewhat after that), the bells ring ever 30 minutes, but class may be 1, 2, 3 or 4 "bell cycles" long. For instance, in my high school, there were 3 (and 4 one year) lunch periods and one period of the day was extended so that certain classes would be after the first lunch, others on both sides of second lunch, and some before 3rd lunch.
Period 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
First Lunch Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Lunch Class 5 Class 6 Class 7
Second Lunch Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Lunch Class 5 Class 6 Class 7
Third Lunch Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Lunch Class 6 Class 7
Except in some religions schools, bell schedules are not connected to church bells.
Hope this helps. Calebrw (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
But what is your POV regarding including them in Wikipedia? Dbiel (Talk) 00:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Perhaps there should be a Wikipedia article on Bell Schedules. There's nothing to link the words to by way of an explanation in the new addition to the "What not to include" section.
Bell schedules does seem trivial to me. Not really encyclopedic information, and should be left out of school articles.--Sting Buzz Me... 00:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Unencyclopedic information subject to frequent change. Some schools use different schedules depending on the day of the week, weather, and holidays. It's material for the school website, not here.--Jh12 (talk) 07:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Newsweek/WSJ ranking and automatic minimum importance

Newsweek

I believe Newsweek's Top Public High School List is one of the only regularly published numerical academic rankings of public secondary schools in the United States. The Newsweek ranking of a school has influenced how editors rate the importance, but I don't think we have a set standard. If the Newsweek ranking is one of the only major standouts, I think importance should have a set minimum of:
consistent top 50 or "public elite"-> automatic Mid importance ranking
Note: there are approximately 26,500 secondary schools in the United States [1]
23,800 public secondary schools are considered
1,428 schools were ranked in 2008 [2], + 17 public elites [3]
A Newsweek ranking alone shouldn't be enough for Mid importance unless the school is in the top 50 or public elite list, about 70 schools total. Also, I've been keeping track of Newsweek public elite schools and their rating at User:Jh12/Draft3. Our assessment ratings have been good; as expected they are all Mid-High importance except for the two schools that don't even mention they are on the list. --Jh12 (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal

Unlike the Newsweek list, I think every school on the Wall Street Journal list here should probably be automatic High importance. The WSJ list is based on admission to top American universities, regardless of school type, and as a result includes some of the best boarding, private, and public schools in the nation. --Jh12 (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sixth form colleges vs Schools with Sixth form

Think the project needs to be aware of the fact that there is an overzealous user who has been heavily and consistently incorrectly adding the Category:Sixth form colleges to schools with Sixth Forms Please Help and discuss thankyouARBAY TALKies 12:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference between Sixth form colleges and schools with Sixth Forms? Dbiel (Talk) 15:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
A 6th Sixth form college is a separate instituion and therefore only catters from 16-19 , you could look at Sixth form college Okay hope that helps ARBAY TALKies 23:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Using US schools as an example. Schools are grouped into 3 classes Category:Elementary and primary schools; Category:Middle schools and Category:High schools and secondary schools. But we also have schools that cross categories ie K-12 or 7-12 etc. These are generally added to multiple categories. K-12 going into all 3 categories, 7-12 going into 2 categories (middle and high school). So I do not see your problem with schools that have sixth form sections being added to Sixth form colleges. Do you want to explain why this is a problem? or how this differs for the US situation which is very similar? ~~
Well in the UK there are multiple levels and Systems. The most often used in England is Primary which is from the Age of 5-11 and then Secondary which is compulsory from 11-16. At 16 we have you can either leave education, Stay on at your school if it has a Sixth Form , or go to a separate institution for example a Sixth Form College or a College of Further education. Legally Sixth form Collages cannot be part of a Secondary school they must be separate. I think there should be a category Schools with Sixth Forms as a school can simply not be a Sixth Form College. ARBAY TALKies 23:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Back to my original question: how does the sixth form section of a school that has a Sixth Form differ from a Sixth Form College. Disregard the "only catters from 16-19" difference. How does the education itself differ within the sixth form section of a school that has a Sixth Form and that of a Sixth Forum College? It might be possible to add a category such as Category:Secondary schools with Sixth Form; but we should get a concensus on this first. Dbiel (Talk) 00:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Well I think maybe somebody with a more in depth knowledge should answer that. But it is a college rather than a school and so Many Sixth Form Colleges, have lecturers rather than teachers some also are non uniform which is unusual for a school in the UK. Also I believe they offer different courses to schools . But as a said a more experienced British WP schools memver might know more. Maybe you could look here to see some other opinions. ARBAY TALKies 01:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Well education wise a sixth form within a school, and a independent sixth form college, are very similar in that both offer similar courses, which in the UK are traditionally A levels, though alternatives such as the IB Diploma Programme are now often available. Though sixth form colleges often offer a wider range of courses with lesser taken courses not being viable for sixth forms within schools to run given that sixth form colleges often have a much larger pool of students. It is for this reason that in some areas of the UK sixth forms within schools are becoming quite rare with sixth form colleges giving any remaining heavy competition.
The structure of a sixth form within a school compared to a sixth form college are where the most differences can be found. All sixth form colleges I know do not require students to wear uniform, which is something, as already said, is rarely found in schools in the UK. Teachers in sixth form colleges are often known as lectures instead, and preform a mixture of both roles, with the treatment students get often being half way between a school and university.
As for the category issue, I don't have any particular strong feelings about it. Though a dedicated category for schools with a sixth form does not sound a bad idea to me. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
One of the key differences between sixth forms in schools and in separate colleges is the funding. Sixth forms in schools are funded via the relevant Local Education Authority. Sixth form colleges are funded directly by the Learning & Skills Council. They are statutorily a different type of body, and are governed differently. While the range of courses offered within the two types of establishment is broadly similar, they are not sufficiently alike to warrant placing schools with sixth forms in the SFC category, in my opinion. Tafkam (talk) 16:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that we have some consensus that it would be sensible to create a "category schools with Sixth Forms" or something of that nature. Any thoughts ARBAY TALKies 17:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd support that. Tafkam (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, I see nothing wrong with creating a more specific category. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to confuse matters, I know of at least one school in the U.S. which uses the term "forms" rather than "grades". So it has a sixth form that is indistinguishable from 12th grade at other U.S. schools. While the school might technically belong in the category, it would be incorrect in another sense. Is there a way of distinguishing schools that have a sixth form in name only? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Project Main Page

If someone gets a chance, the ToC is incredibly long and could do with some trimming. Five Years 12:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well it might be a good idea to split more off on to other pages; most of the advisory content such as general, tips, sources, alumni, and songs on article structure could be moved to a re-activated WP:WPSCH/AG. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Definately a good idea. When you get a chance, go for it! (unless we have any objections). Five Years 16:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will shortly if there are no objections. A move around could always be tinkered with/reversed if necessary. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
checkY Done All the advice that was on the project page has now been moved to the Article guideline sub-page, with a summary left on the main project page. The original purpose of article guidelines page, and the main bit that is possibly missing from the current page, is a review of school article notability. To avoid controversy I have decided not to include that for now, though it has been suggested that a summary be added in the past, and I think it might be good to add if a full Wikipedia guideline on the issue at WP:SCHOOLS is marked as failed (which is becoming likely). Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Great work, weve shaved alot off the page. Nice job! Five Years 14:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Jh12 (talk · contribs) moved the templates back to the main page, a reason was not given, but I have decided not to object as they are a little outside the guidelines for organising articles. I originally moved them intentionally as they are part of the article building with infoboxes e.t.c. They can always be given there own page if the main one gets to long again. Camaron | Chris (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize you had moved them intentionally and I've been working with school infoboxes and the WPSchools template. Otherwise I would have put in an explanation. Honestly, I still have mixed feelings about the moving of the article guidelines. To me, they're more important to have on the main page than anything else. My main page would have Article guideline "Structure" section, Templates, Article grading, Top importance school articles, School articles recommended for deletion, Collaboration of the month, etc. and have the rest of the Article guidelines, Did you know?, Featured articles, A class articles, Good articles in a subpage. --Jh12 (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, I am quite happy to have them on the main page and they are a little outside article guidelines. I agree they are quite important and should probably stay on the main page as a lot of other projects do so, and I'm sorry that I did not make clear on this talk page that I was going to move them. As for what is currently on the sub-page, I think it should be OK, I have left a summary on the main page, and it is nice to have a dedicated page for guidance as other projects do - and more could be added in the future. Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Schools

If anyones got any free time, the schools portal could do with some serious attention, possibly with a view towards getting it to featured status. Five Years 15:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A good one to look at would be Portal:Education, which is featured and has some good content. Five Years 15:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I've made some changes to Portal:Schools. More specifically, the articles and pictures are randomly generated based on the selections placed at Portal:Schools/Selected_article and Portal:Schools/Selected_picture. The plan is to have all GA and FA articles for selection. As for the selected picture, I am requesting suggestions. I chose Top/High-importance schools because of their significance and unique architecture. Also, the images should not be copyrighted. Of course, any additional input and assistance with adding articles/images is appreciated. --Jh12 (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Might also be worth looking at school buildings with articles solely based on that, eg: Edmund Rice Administration Wing. Five Years 16:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Good one; right now Aquinas College is already a selected article, but I'll keep that one in mind. Keep looking for pretty pictures! --Jh12 (talk) 12:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Project Template

After the last round of template deletions. Ive found another one that i think might also be worth getting rid of: Template:WPSCHOOLS. It has 4 links to it, i cant ever remember seeing an article transclude to it. Is it really worth keeping? Five Years 16:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

K-12 school categorization

How should K-12 schools be categorized? There is no specific category for them

Option #1

Add all three basic categories - Elementary, Middle, High School categories

Option #2

Add only the parent school category that the other three categories belong to.

Dbiel (Talk) 00:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It largely will depend on the country. I know in Australia, it is primary (elementary) and high school. Five Years 15:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I fully understand your point, which is why I was not more specific - see below for a specific example. Dbiel (Talk) 19:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused, what exactly are you proposing? Calebrw (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I was not clear enough. I am not proposing anything but asking how it should be done
Specific example of a Michigan school serving grades K-12
Option#1 - using all 3 related categories
Category:Elementary schools in Michigan
Category:Middle schools in Michigan
Category:High schools in Michigan
Option#2 - only using the parent category
Category:Schools in Michigan
Which of these two options is the method that should be followed? Or should there be a new category for K-12 schoools? Dbiel (Talk) 19:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


Are there many schools of that nature in Michigan? Tafkam (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand the reason for the question, but I am unsure of the number of schools that would fit that category. Also, Michigan was use as an example only because I am currently on Michigan as I work my way though the list of States creating the missing Schools by state categories. see User:Dbiel/Category:Schools in the United States by state Dbiel (Talk) 19:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe precedent has been option #1, adding the school to all its related categories. I think any school handling 9-12 should be in the high school category, even if it's one of the many public and private schools that include primary school years. --Jh12 (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
That was my general feeling, but since I have been doing a fair amount of categorization in this area and finding some that are only listed in the parent category, I was looking for a bit more guidance. Thank you Dbiel (Talk) 19:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools/Archive_14&oldid=1137366544"