Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. 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 15

←

Archive 17

→

Proposed deletion of Government English Higher Primary School

The article Government English Higher Primary School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no published (gBooks) support for the content of this article. Fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD: Shepherd's Hill Farm

This article is being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shepherd's Hill Farm. Voceditenore (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on Revisions to Northwest High School (Montgomery County, MD)

As a former student at Northwest High School (Montgomery County, Maryland) I have taken an interest in improving the article (in accordance with WP:NPOV) and wanted to get your thoughts on my proposed revision to the Academics section which I've posted on my User Sandbox here: User:Ordwayen/Ordwayen_Sandbox. Thanks Ordwayen (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Replying on your talk page.--Kudpung (talk) 05:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this. I've gone ahead and added those sections to the article. Ordwayen (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Schools articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the WikiProject Schools articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

One-school school districts

We have been handling these in various ways. Some consistency might be easier to work with. We normally merge elementary schools into the article for the school district; this gives a problem with single-school districts. If all the districts in a county are single-school, we can make an article for the county. But in some cases -- for example see the articles in List of school districts in California by county many but not all of the districts have multiple schools. Perhaps we should systematically make articles like List of school districts in San Diego County, California with links to articles for the districts with more than one school, and the necessary short paragraph for the others. A example of a somewhat different approach is Rural school districts in Washington, but the placement of districts in here is arbitrary--and the article says as much. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not quite following this. I think I agree if you are saying that one-school school districts should often be merged with their school. This works particularly well for elementary and middle school. Maybe not quite so well with high school, where there is a lot more material (and some real contributors, mostly unregistered newbies). I would go for "local option" (merged perhaps) until there is enough material to fork. I don't think we have to come up with a standard policy for a district with a high school. Maybe "suggestions" would do just as well. (I realize that, normally, a district with a high school also has the lower grades as well so might not really fall under this proposed guideline).

Note that we are assuming that there is not much publishable material on a school district. That may not always be the case for every school district even one with limited responsibility. Student7 (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox UK school

I've started a discussion over at Template talk:Infobox UK school regarding the size of logos in the infobox. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks Mhiji (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I've also now started a discussion about the same infobox with regards to deleting some of the parameters. Any thought would be great here: Template talk:Infobox UK school#Unnecessary_parameters.3F Mhiji (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

School, school, school

Hello, I'm currently trying to improve the opening paragraphs of Wisbech Grammar School, but I keep noticing the endless repetition of the word "school". I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to elegantly vary it, as quite a few of the definitions in the paragraph seem to require the word, and it doesn't go under any other name (it's not classified as a college, for example). Has anyone else ever encountered this problem, and are there any suggestions for a suitable way around it? Thanks. Rob (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've encountered this problem several times (not only with school articles). I've reworded the opening paragraphs so that "school" is mentioned fewer times. The rewording I used included "it", "Wisbech Grammar", and "institution" (schools are placed in the subcategories of Category:Educational institutions by year of establishment so I think this is an acceptable rewording). The first and third paragraphs are okay now, though I'm still having problems with this sentence from the middle paragraph:

Following the closure of the nearby St Audrey's Convent, a feeder school for the senior school, a new junior and infant preparatory school was opened in 1997, now known as Magdalene House.

I am unsure as to how this can be reworded so that "school" is not mentioned three times. Perhaps replace one of them with "institution"? Hope this helps! Cunard (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Rob (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Notable, or maybe not

I have been annoyed by the excessive number of "notables" added to school alumni that were "musicians." I decided to look into the credentials of one insertion and found that the credentials for the person were really slim, though I did have to examine several footnotes to discover this. As a result, I Afd-ed the bio. New notable insertion of musicians may be a good place to catch WP:NN articles. These bios are going unexamined otherwise. Student7 (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, if examining the school article very deeply, it's definitely worth looking at bios- not just musicians. It's also a chance to look for disambiguations, redirects to a band/tv show/something else in place of a NN biography, etc. tedder (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kantipur English High School

The article Kantipur English High School has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No claims of notability, a search for references found no published (gBooks) references, fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

'To do' list of UK schools using wrong infoboxes

We now have a special page with a list of some 500 UK schools using the wrong infoboxs. Anyone is welcome to help out there, instructions are on the page. Thanks go to User:Keith D for making the lists.--Kudpung (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

"As of" parameter

A disagreement has arisen over the use of the "as of" parameter in the infobox as well as the need to have a citation in the infobox, both in relation to the enrollment figures. The article is Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio) and originally the enrollent figure of 1,336 was directly cited in the section on demographics, though it is mentioned in the lead and in the infobox, but without citations in either place. The "as of" parameter was at "2010" since the 1,336 came from the Ohio State Report cards, which were released in August 2010. Another editor is of the opinion that the "as of" parameter should read "2009-10" since the data is from the 2009-10 school year and also that the exact number needs a citation in the infobox, even with the later citation in the Demographics section. I think it's being a little overly precise since the report was completed and released in 2010 (not to mention the bulk of a given school year is the second of the two years) and that "2009-10" in the infobox looks awkward, particularly when the faculty number above it has a "2010" afterwards. I would like to see what others think for the infobox. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a higher ed scholar so I'm a bit out of place in this discussion but in U.S. colleges and universities enrollment figures for a given academic year are typically a snapshot taken from one day in the fall semester. If this high school employs a similar methodology, it would seem important to state that this number is from the 2009-2010 academic year rather than stating that it's from 2010. So it seems important to know when the numbers were collected. Is that in the report? Were the numbers collected in 2009 but only compiled and released in August of 2010? Or were the numbers collected in August of 2010 and released very quickly? In either case, it does seem that it would be more accurate to specify the academic year since the academic calendar straddles two calendar years. ElKevbo (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

In this specific instance, the enrollment numbers come from the Ohio State Report cards, which are based on data collected and averaged through the school year and released just before the start of the next academic year. The enrollment itself does not specify when it is collected, but it is listed under "average daily enrollment" suggesting that it is not simply a one-time census at the beginning of a semester like colleges typically report. In terms of other years in the same infobox, it lists just one year (even things listed from the same report like the "grade") and even on college infoboxes, the enrollment number is specified in a single year, usually with a month ("September 2010"), not the academic year. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Then it sounds to me that this number should be associated with the academic year in which it was collected. Nailing it down to a specific year when it was collected over the span over two years doesn't seem good enough when we know that is inaccurate. ElKevbo (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is less ambiguous to note the academic year. At least in Illinois, the population numbers are based on the beginning of the year student population, while the academic data is based on tests taken later in the school year, which is the next calendar year. I don't know if this is the same for all states, so giving the academic year in which the data was collected, IMO, makes for a less ambiguous situation. As far as the referencing, I don't have a problem with it being referenced in the infobox (I tend to do this), and I have no problem with citing it in the article. As long as it is cited, I don't have a problem. If it is a hang up, there is a way to cite a single reference twice ... which could avoid a conflict, and make it less problematic for the next editor who sees the data and tries to cite tag it for not being referenced. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm copying the previous talk to here because this will end up as a board wide issue concerning all school articles. Please read it.--Kudpung (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

previous discussions

Enrollment (continued from Jon's talk pae

This is not vandalism. Do you count the students daily? Kent4Eva (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent4Eva (talk • contribs) 04:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well the "most recent statistic" is that I am not there. 1,336-1=1,335 Kent4Eva (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent4Eva (talk • contribs) 04:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is the "statistic" even up there if it is not currently accurate? Should you not cite it as being an outdated fact in the article so that people are not confused by it as I was? Also, The other editing going on on this page at this moment is driving me nuts. I keep trying to find the revisions having to do with my issue, and I keep seeing QWERTY's. He is also right, by the way. I got far enough in English to know that the two are interchangeable. You are both right, so please, both of you, stop arguing. Kent4Eva (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kent4Eva (talk • contribs) 04:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not say it had to be changed. I just said that you guys are arguing over a synonym, and it is not necessary to do so. I was just annoyed because the two of you are just going back and forth and making it difficult for me to find your talk page. As with the enrollment issue, it should be clearly cited that the statistic is for the 09-10 year and not current. It confused me, so I am sure it has confused others. I just happen to know for a very certain fact that there is one less adolescent to grace RHS with my smile (and my rusty Corolla) every morning.Kent4Eva (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

my point is that changing a word for the sake of changing it is not a good reason. And yes, after the enrollment number it says "(2010)" so that it is clearly dated (the report came out in August 2010). --JonRidinger (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It may be cited as being from a 2010 report, but please then edit it t reflect the fact that the actual reported number is from last year. The enrollment of a high school fluctuates drastically from year to year, and this may cause confusion. I am not an expert with the Wikipedia rules, so I do not know how this edit should be made, but I am asking you to make this change for me. You seem to be the editor of the page so I am submitting a request for it to be clarified. Also, once again, please do not talk to ME about changes being made by this Qwetry guy! I don't care what you guys talk about, but I am trying to discuss the enrollment with you, and you are blowing me off.Kent4Eva (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, in the infobox, after the number 1,336, there is a "(2010)" to indicate that the number is from 2010. In the article itself, the sentence reads "As of 2010..." That is standard for Wikipedia and for any published source that uses a type of population number. The enrollment is never static, but to constantly update it would be overly picky and unnecessary. The point is to give an accurate, not necessarily precise, view of the enrollment. As for changing "drastically" every year, it really doesn't. It's largely the same year to year within 100 either way. 10 years ago the enrollment was right about the same as it is today. "Drastically" would be something like dropping or going up by a large percentage (like a couple hundred people or more). Changing from 1,342 (2009 enrollment) to 1,336 is not "drastic". The last "drastic" enrollment change was in the 1960s and 1970s when Kent's population increased by a large percentage (like near 60%). --JonRidinger (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The text of the article is clear that it is 2009-10. The problem is that the infobox parameter is different, although technically compatible with the article. Many states have an enrollment census on the first week of school and then do another a month later with the second being used to compute state aid. I suspect that even though the report was dated 2010, it was probably based on Sept 2009 or October 2009 data. The best solution would be to add a footnote to that infobox item. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The text of the article states "through the 2009-2010 school year" meaning after the school year. Nothing in the report states exactly when the enrollment data was collected, so we can't speculate based on other states or situations. It is also labeled as "average daily enrollment" suggesting it is not a beginning-of-the-year census. The bottom line is that if anyone dated the data it would be dated as "2010" since that's when it was released (more specifically August 2010). Personally I think it's geting a little picky between having "2009-2010" or "2010" in the infobox; the point is to let the reader know how recent the numbers are. If you feel there is a clarity problem between the text and the infobox, I'd just change the article text. I wrote "Through the 2009-2010 school year" to avoid another use of "As of 2010..." which is already quite frequent. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever way school roll is counted in the USA, let us not forget that there are also tens of thousands of articles here about schools in other countries. The rational presented by Jon is logical and is the same that I apply to the hundreds of school articles that I patrol, repair, devandalise, update, and write. I tend to round the figures up and down using common sense as seen from an encyclopedia reader's angle. Anyone needing more precise information can contact the school or the local authority.--Kudpung (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This makes adding a ref to the enrollment parameter of the infobox all the more important. Racepacket (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Because it is cited in the body of the article, citing in the infobox isn't necessary. I'm not seeing what the problem is here to be honest...--JonRidinger (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, in regards to the "2009-10" to me, it looks awkward in the infobox. The number in parenthesis should show the year the data comes from. It would be one thing if it were a 2005 report released in 2010, but this is a report that was completed in 2010, therefore simply putting "2010" is more than sufficient. The fact that some of the data was collected at the end of 2009 is more of a detail rather than an important fact. If people want to know the finer details of the state report cards, the link is available. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It makes the adding of a ref to the infobox even less important. An infobox is provided as a quick overview. It should not offer any information (except perhaps street address) that is not treated in depth in the article. Approximations are fully in order for infoboxes, and it neither necessary nor aesthetsic to clutter them up with references because the ref will already have been supplied in the text and supplied by either the local authority, the state school inspection board, or failing those, the school itself. If a school article is complete and well written, it's history will mention the evolution and growth of the size of the school over time. It can be taken for granted that the figure in the infobox was correct at the time the diff was posted, if the author was doing his/her research correctly. Kudpung (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jon, I've sent out a friendly request to everyone to continue talking about this school on its tp. It's not fair using your kitchen as a chat room, and anyway, with so many people involved, the discussion now needs centralising. --Kudpung (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I did already post there, though there really aren't that many people involved. It's you, me, and Racepacket. Kent4Eva hasn't edited since the initial edit that I reverted (though we had a discussion about it) and Qwerty's edits were not related to the enrollment; they were mostly centered around the use of the word "razed" in the history section. If you look at the edit history of the article and the discussion that followed, Kent4Eva was simply editing the enrollment because he no longer attends the school, not because of any type of disagreement with or questioning of the source. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jon. I meant it generally, not necessarily for any specific topics that may arise about the school. It's just that as you did such a magnificnt job on it, you are the magnet for any discussion. It used to happen a lot on my tp too until I put a banner on the top. What I'm secretly hoping is to drum up some support for the WP:WPSCHOOLS project, and that's why anything about schools shows up on my watch list. We have over three hundred (300) members and only 2 (two) of then are active on the project itself!--Kudpung (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks for clearing that up. I'm kind of surprised this particular issue has even come up. It just seems so trivial to me, I don't see the point of changing it from what it was. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing (continued, copied from school talk page)

The infobox should contain a ref for the enrollment. I have added a ref for the data which gives a value for the 2009-2010 academic year. Hence, I have added 2009-10 to the date parameter for the enrollment. The date of the report is not relevant, the date of the data is what matters. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Posted 30 minutes before Ruhrfisch suggested moving the discussion from the user talk page.

As was discussed on my talk page, because the enrollment data is sourced within the body of the article (see the Demographics section) it does not need to be sourced in the infobox unless it's highly controversial or challengeable. The enrollment of a public high school is definitely not controversial. So you really haven't provided any additional or missing source; the source was already in the article in an appropriate location. The date of the report is definitely relevant since the "as of" is referencing the date the data comes from. The fact it includes some from 2009 is a minor detail at best. Again, this is a case of being over precise. Using an academic year ("2009-10") in the same way as a regular year is confusing in the infobox and awkward. The faculty number and the distinctions all use single years to denote either how recent the data is or when the distinction was awarded. It is not inaccurate to state that the data comes from 2010, since that is when some of it was collected and it was organized and published. Specifically related to enrollment, there is nothing to indicate it wasn't collected in 2010. I'm not sure what you meant in your edit summary about data that's unsourced. Everything in that article has a reliable source. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

As you prepare the article for FAC, please remember that unlike a GA review, the FA review will focus on the timeliness of the data presented. The Ohio Dept of Education "report card" lags behind because it reports a lot of data that is collected during an academic year such as test scores. However, the "report card" is not the only source of enrollment data, which is frequently available from the school district website. The article now has correctly reflected that the enrollment data in the infobox comes from the "report card" that was issued in August 2010 for the 2009-2010 academic year. The mean SAT data is from the 2008-09 academic year because that data was dropped in the 2009-2010 "report card". However, that does not stop us from searching other data sources for more current data. The example provided in Template:Infobox school/doc shows using a hyphenated academic year. Keep up the good work. Racepacket (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern for FAC, but do know I have some experience with FAC and am fully aware of the differences between GAN and FAC and that in writing articles, I write them towards passing FAC, not GAN.

In terms of data, enrollment is much like census reports. Census reports are not up to date, and in many cases are years behind, yet a city article would have no problem passing FAC having info from the 2000 census in it (until the 2010 census is released). The Kent, Ohio article's entire demographics section is based on data from the 2000 census, despite the fact there is a more recent "estimate". In this case, the enrollment number is apparently an average of the entire school year, so it is hardly "way out of date" nor inaccurate. Considering that the 1,336 number was already referenced in the Demographics section, I still am not seeing how there would be any confusion as to where it came from and why it needs a specific citation in the infobox. This school does not publish detailed enrollment numbers, at least in a very obvious place (usually it's *very* general mention that is never updated), which is why I used the report cards in the first place. Even if it did, I still wouldn't label it as "2009-10" enrollment, I'd label it "August 2010" or just "2010" or whenever it was taken since like a census, enrollment is usually a snapshot. Even then, it's largely irrelevant. I chose to use the report card as the source for enrollment, specifically because of the breakdown of demographic characteristic used later in the article; nowhere have I stated it is *the* authoritative source. It would be one thing if I were using an enrollment number from the 2002 or 2005 report card, but this is the most recent, so timeliness will not be an issue at FAC, nor will there be issues of reliability or bias.

The point of any article is to provide accurate and important information, not necessarily up-to-the-day precise information (which is why I reverted Kent4Eva's initial change in the enrollment number), particularly on something of very low importance like a largely unknown public high school. Does it make it more difficult to understand because it says "2010" and not "2009-10" or that a number does not have a citation in one place? Why not cite everything in the infobox? The ACT and SAT scores are cited in the infobox because they are not cited anywhere else, same with the CEEB code. Perhaps the scores need a "2008" after them as well, but they are the most recent ones available. Also, examples in infobox documentation do not mean it *must* be exactly like that. Those are meant to be guidelines, not absolutes. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) I think that things that are likely to change on a regular basis should be referenced and have the year given in the infobox. Things in the lead are usually not referenced (since there is a ref in the body of the article), but I think it helps to have refs in the infobox for things that are likely to change on an annual basis. This has several advantages. If someone comes along and randomly changes it, it allows anyone to see the ref and fix (or update) the number. If updating, it saves having to hunt for the ref in the body of the article. If anyone is updating, they only have to look at the ref, the ref then shows all the places it is used (so all occurences are updated). I added "school year" to the enrollment line to hopefully make it clearer, as the report card said it was for the school year. In the infobox, I would have refs for the enrollment, the number of faculty, and the SAT and ACT scores, and would also give the date or year for each. Agree that FAC is OK with data that is somehwta out of date, but do think it always helps to give the year. On a completely unrelated note, while I like the map, the dots are too close in color and I cannot tell which is which - the dots need to be two more different colors. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I took out "school year" because I don't think it's really necessary, even in a school article. Since the argument seems to be that the data was collected in both 2009 and 2010 so we shouldn't just use 2010 by itself (at least in this instance...if the enrollment source were from the school, it would definitely be a single-year "as of"), then having "school year" isn't needed since it really was collected in both 2009 and 2010. I still think it's a bit of overkill ("2009-10" vs "2010"), but oh well. I'll fix the map...what I'll probably do is put a small letter "R" on Roosevelt and a "C" on Central and change the pink more. I'm making a map of the elementary districts and have done similar. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Jon, I think you misunderstood my use of the word "census." Many school administrators call the head count of enrollment and other student characteristics a census. I think that the article should use the most recently available enrollment data and test score data. If this data is available directly from the school district, there is no need to wait for the state to issue its annual "report card," particularly if it has dropped the reporting of mean SAT scores. I do not understand why you believe that the 2009-10 report card represents data from both 2009 and 2010. I think that the school reported enrollment data to the state in the fall of 2009, and they used that data as representative for the entire 2009-10 school year. Do we have any evidence that there was a separate headcount generated for the spring 2010 semester? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope, no misunderstanding here at all. I'm fully aware that most enrollment numbers are a type of census or headcount; I update the enrollment stats for the Kent State University article every semester. The point is that any enrollment is a measure from one particular moment in time. While I can go with using "2009-10" on this instance in the infobox since it can be assumed the enrollment was averaged using both years, if the number had come from the school, it most likely would've been a census-type snapshot and thus it would be valid to put "2009" or "August 2009" in the "as of parameter" since that is when the number came from.

Not sure what you mean by "no need to wait". If you think I'm relying only on the report cards as some kind of preference, please understand that is not the case. I used the report card enrollment data because the school's own enrollment data is not readily available or updated. Other high school articles I have worked on have been different; I'll use numbers from the school where they are available. For Roosevelt, the enrollment number given is "1,378" here and that is not dated (most likely from fall 2009 since the page is copyrighted 2009-2010; I know it hasn't been updated for this school year), so the state number is actually the most recent. We cannot assume that the school simply reported a number and that was used since it doesn't say that, on top of the way it is presented as "average daily enrollment" as opposed to just "enrollment". Simply saying because colleges or other states or other schools do it one way does not mean we can make the same assumption here. Neither of us has hard "evidence" to prove that it's a one-time census or an on-going count, though I have reason to believe it's not a one time thing based on what I said. Further, the state also measures attendance and graduation rates as part of their rating, so keeping an up-to-date enrollment figure is important for those ratings. As for test scores (which are not covered in this article), the district gets their test score data from the state; they await the annual release of those report cards as much as the public and get them only a short time before they are released in August. Again, I'm really surprised this has even become an issue. It's like I'm having to argue for the reliability of a source. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly labouring a point that is taking up an undue amount of valuable editing time. All civilised countries have a record somewhere of the number of pupils in a school. The UK maintains several sources for the number on roll: the county council education department, the ONS, the Ofsted school inspection, and the school itself, and I am sure tat America has such systems too - if not better. It's not our mission to record the most up to date figures if the last official head count was even three years ago - eg.: 'As of 2007' etc, is perfectly admissible. Approximations, or round up or down is also perfectly acceptable. I suggest either find a source, any source, then quote it, or get a few more editors to comment here and arrive at a consensus.--Kudpung (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

break

Just so that any interested editors know, throughout the article it says either "As of 2010..." or "Through the 2009-2010 school year". As I told Kudpung, I'm all for clarity and accuracy, but to me this is between absolute precision and accuracy. It is certainly accurate to state that as of 2010 the enrollment was 1,336 since a reliable source listed it as such in a report completed in 2010. Is it totally precise? Probably not, but that's not our mission here. If people want the enrollment as of right now, they can easily e-mail or call the school. Chances are pretty good it isn't far from 1,336. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC) |}

I'm sorry but I completely disagree that it's accurate to write "as of 2010" when referring to data collected in 2009 and 2010 and averaged throughout that time span. To me, this is an issue of integrity and clarity. I know that it would be simpler to just write "as of 2010" for this and similar data but it's just wrong to do so, factually and ethically. I know that it sucks that the academic year is misaligned with the calendar year but that's just the way it is and we can't ignore or dodge the issue because it makes our lives a teensy bit difficult (how do you think those of us immersed in it feel, especially those of us who also have to juggle fiscal years that don't align with academic or calendar years?).

I simply don't under why there is resistance to adding five characters that seem to add precision that is necessary given the inherent ambiguity of referring to calendar years in relation to data inherently tied to the academic calendar. ElKevbo (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you've followed the thread for this insanely long and tedious discussion, you'll note that it's not so much adding "2009-10" everywhere (even though I'd hardly call it "unethical" not to add), but the nature of the source. Racepacket has called into question using the State Report Card as the source for the enrollment number; we're no longer talking about how it's worded so much as we're looking at being precise with an enrollment or accurate. As it stands now, the enrollment number is accurate and the date of that number is August 2010 since the report itself does not specify when it was collected beyond the school year. Please also note that the main section that uses the data (Theodore Roosevelt High School (Kent, Ohio)#Demographics) specifically mentions "Through the 2009-2010 school year..."

As I've read the discussions I can go with using "2009-10" in the infobox (where appropriate) since it's an average from the whole school year (as far as we know). However, if it were simply the headcount at the beginning of the semester, we would be perfectly correct in using just a single year since that when it was collected; you could use the month if you're concerned about accuracy. It would not be inaccurate, imprecise, or unethical to state such since that when it was collected. Not all school-related data is done over a school year nor should we assume it is. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no particular issue with the source in question. But I continue to disagree with your assertion that it's sufficient to simply state the year if the data were collected on a single date. In fact, I would question the reliability and usefulness if a source only gave the calendar year without specifying either the academic year/semester or more specific information. ElKevbo (talk) 04:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It all depends on the source whether you'd use the academic year or the calendar year. I've been convinced of using the academic year for the "as of" parameter in cases such as this where it isn't totally clear when the data was collected or that it uses data averaged through the school year. That's fine. But if the source is a census or even a test that is given on a certain date then the school year is irrelevant since the data would be a one-time thing with a clear date. So, for the Ohio State Report cards, "as of" for enrollment is going to read "(2009-10)" or "(2009-2010)". However, if the source is the school's website, then the "as of" would probably read "(2009)" or "(August 2009)". Using the beginning headcount and then putting "2010-11" would actually be less accurate since the headcount in the fall is not a static number the entire year and likely wouldn't be correct for the entire school year. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe that identification of the academic year as "2009-10" is correct because the Ohio "Report Card" (which was delayed until August 2010) is for the prior academic year and is clearly labelled as such. The enrollment_as_of parameter is intended to be the measuring date and not the report date. In this particular article, there were a lot of different demographics and statistics cited, but the enrollment figure in the main text was also identified as 2009-10. It is best to have a footnote in the infobox, even if it is the same named ref as appears in the text to avoid any confusion regarding the source. When an editor seeks to add a reference to an infobox for clarity and good sourcing, it should be welcomed and not trigger either an edit war or a grand debate. I agree with ElKevbo and LonelyBeacon. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Make sure you understand the difference between a footnote and a citation. What you were after was a footnote for clarity, but you used footnote and citation interchangeably. They are similar but not the same thing. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are using a parenthetical citation, (which is doubtful in an infobox) a footnote citation is what I meant. Racepacket (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Notable alumni

Recently, an IP editor added a new name to the list of notable alumni on the Cedarburg High School article. This new name, Chip Rank, is a college basketball player and there's no article about this person. I'm not very clear on Wikipedia's policy of notable alumni for high schools, so does this person, or any college athlete for that matter, qualify as a notable alumnus? Loopygrumpkins (talk) 05:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

if his alumni relationship to the high school is not from an independent reliable source, consider deleting it. Racepacket (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The notability standard is the same as it would be for creating an article on this person. In this case it can be found at WP:ATHLETE#College athletes. Kanguole 16:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as notable alumni, if an article on the person doesn't exist yet, it's pretty much a given they shouldn't be on the list for their high school, college, or hometown. If an article is started and the relationship has a reliable source, then it can be added with no problem. Most times I've seen many well-meaning editors find accomplished or successful alumni and add them to the list, but accomplished doesn't necessarily mean notable. Accomplished and successful alumni would be appropriate on a school's own website, not here. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that the lack of an article is reason enough to omit the name from a list. If the name is otherwise notable and verifiable, a WP:REDLINK should be included for them to indicate an article that ought to be created.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. A blue-link suggests the subject is notable (if the article survives), but not every notable subject has an article yet. Kanguole 20:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If an article exists, then the alum should be added, if there is a red link, then the alum likely should not be added. Some consideration I always give is for red links who are founders of notable companies, members of notable bands (especially true if the memebr is redirected to the band), or any fully professional athlete. I think it was determined a long time ago that collegiate and scholastic athletes are not inherently notable, and thus shouldn't be automatically listed. I have tended to delete these folks when they are red links (though a few with blue links are a bit dubious in my mind ... when did high school athletes start getting articles???). LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(moving left) It's a lot easier to discuss notability of an individual through the process Wikipedia has for doing so- namely, AFD. It's rare that a non-notable individuals, linked on school pages, have sufficient references given to show WP:GNG is met. Discussing the notability of a tangental subject is best done by actually creating the article in these cases. tedder (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

My comment about not having an article is a good rule of thumb for these lists, but please note I did not say it was an absolute. I did not imply that not having an article = not notable (particularly by including "yet" as part of my comment). Tedder is right, a school alumni list isn't a place to assert someone's notability. The vast majority of people without articles added to alumni or notable natives lists are definitely not notable and the cases where they are notable and just haven't had an article created yet are few and far between. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite clear in this case. As other editors have been saying, sometimes we allow "John Doe, state governor 1820-1824" (footnote) when it is clear that he was a state governor, that he did attend this school and nobody has gotten around to writing the article yet. On the other hand, stubbing it only takes a few minutes and can give confirmation that he really exists, so even then, deletion is okay. May force someone's hand into stubbing the article. Student7 (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

In the hypothetical situation you describe (citation establishes attendance and clear notability), deleting the entry would not be OK. Kanguole 18:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

My take on this is basically the same as for biographies: Whether in a stand-alone article or as a mention on a page, any claim attached to the name of a person that is likely to be controversial or queried by a reader (it has happened), notability must be asserted and it must be supported by by a WP:RS (generally the school's own ste will do for this). If the alumnus has a Wiki page, the notability can be assumed to be asserted, but if alumnus status is not mentioned and/or not sourced on that page, they should not be on an alumni list, and they get deleted. See an example at List of Old Malvernians. There are also hidden notes in edit mode to deter rogue additions.Kudpung (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Wisbech Grammar School

This article has been nominated for GA listing, and this project's tag is on the talkpage. The article is on hold for seven days as there are some issues which need to be dealt with. If you feel the article has been tagged inappropriately, please remove the tag. If this article is within this project's interest, please visit, and see if you can help out. SilkTork *^YES! 01:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The whole extracurricular thing

I wanted to prompt some discussion about the fairly bad state of extracurricular sections in school articles. Having prowled around to see how various articles handle them. I would like to propose some new options and see if there is consensus for a direction. First, the current guidelines notes:

Extracurricular activities – Mention the sports team(s) of the school and what is notable about them. Here is also a good place to mention specific traditions of school, like students' union/student council activities, a student newspaper, clubs, regular activities, etc. The heading may be changed accordingly in regard to the importance of sports, clubs, traditions, students' unions etc. For example, alternative headings could be Students' Union, Sports and Traditions or Students' Union Activities. Mention significant championships for the sports teams. Specific students should not be mentioned unless they are notable in their own right.

Some suggestions:

A. Extracurricular atheltic and non-athletic teams should be contained in tables.
B. Same should be contained in collapsable tables.
C. Only notable teams/clubs/organizations should be mentioned specifically (based on criteria such as importance in the community, age, and success). An appropriate link to a website listing of all activities can be provided.

In all cases, these need to be referenced (naturally).

As far as noting extracurricular awards:

D. Any recognition above 3rd place in province/region/oblast/state/prefecture or equivalent should be noted. If this listing is long, it can be contained in a table.
E. Same as D, but in a collapsable table.
F. Any recognition equal to or above province/region/oblast/state/prefecture or equivalent championship should be noted, If this listing is long, it can be contained in a table.
G. Same as F, but with a collapsable table.

In all cases, these need to be referenced.

H. In addition to Specific students should not be mentioned unless they are notable in their own right, a similar statement regarding coaches, band directors, sponsors, etc should be included, as this seems to be one of the more common things I clean out of articles.

I don't think this is the most important part of the articles here, but recent conversations and editing have brought it foremost to my attention. I have my opinions, but am not married to them ... I am interested to see if there is consensus to move one way or the other on this, or not. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I !vote for F and H. F is the standard I've used when editing school articles- I've created and edited somewhere around 600 high schools at this point (if not more). tedder (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

We should not be using collapsible tables as per MOS:COLLAPSE. The definitions above need to be globalised as the appearance of the word state looks rather US centric. Keith D (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Collapsible sections may be used in navboxes or infoboxes, or in tables which consolidate information covered in the prose. I am sure I am missing something here, but this seems to endorse their use .... it could be noted (in prose) that a team has won 100 titles, and list them in a collapsable table. Again, I'm not endorsing one way or the other ... I just never read the policy to be exclusionary on these things. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It is pointless having a table then as you will have covered all of the information in the table in the text in order to use a collapsible one. Keith D (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer to omit tables. They seem to call attention to stuff that is quite peripheral to the function of schools in this case. I would prefer that extra-curricula and athletics subsections (and suggestions) be kept as separate as possible. I consider athletic "clubs" part of athletics. These are sports that aren't in a formal league and may be intra-scholastic, not playing outside the school at all.

We have, up until now, enforced no mention unless a high school (or equivalent) has won the championship, not runner-up, not third-place, at the state/province, or equivalent, level. Colleges may be different. In the US, there may be an NCAA "final four" or something, fairly high at the national level and therefore allowable ("beyond" state level or conference level).

I sort of though all sports teams can be mentioned once. For example, "The school has the following teams: soccer, baseball, ice hockey." Period, if no championships ever. This seems sufficiently innocuous IMO.

IMO, high schools should avoid naming their club (extra-curricula): "The Perry Mason Players" should be called, instead, "The drama club". Perry Mason Player is just a bit pretentious for a high school IMO. And the fact that they perform in "Susie Swanson Auditorium". Who cares besides the high school? Student7 (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree on pretty much all counts except the runner-up. I don't think it's out of line to mention a school athletic team's runner-up finish, especially if its a school that doesn't have a bazillion athletics state titles. State is the highest level of competition in US athletics, so getting to the state championship game or even the final four is a notable accomplishment. There are mythical national titles in US high schools, but there is no national tournament for athletics. Many of the clubs do have national and even international touurnaments and competitions, though, but those vary greatly in notability. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between runner-up in Wyoming (500k people) and runner-up in California (37M people). It might be better to judge it based on that than an absolute guideline. tedder (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Most states do not have a single state championship in each sport but will have sports divided into enrollment divisions. That way you don't have tiny schools of a few hundred competing against schools with 2,000 or more students. Larger states will have more divisions. In my home state of Ohio, the number of divisions based on enrollment varies by sports (football is divided into 6 divisions, basketball 4, less popular sports just 1 or 2 divisions). Each state does it differently (some refer to the size divisions as the school's "class" like 5A, 4A, etc.). Virginia even separates public and private schools in competitions, including athletics. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why it is possible for a team from any school to become champion. Most do if they have been around long enough! Which doesn't really make it that notable, but school supporters won't permit no mention. It is easy to enforce champion only. I've been doing it for years. Once you allow runner-ups you can't stop. "What about that heartbreaker triple overtime...." It won't quit! Every school that has been around 20 years was a state champion in something. Let's leave it at that.

BTW, we are not trying so much to determine what is "fair" here to the several of us discussing it. We are supposed to be coming up with something easily enforced with the hundreds of newbie editors that will be working on hs articles for a day or two each in the future. Student7 (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

State championships

(indent) Student 7 brings up a point: I think that anyone who might like the idea of "mention nothing beyond the teams" is swimming upstream ... whether they are "right" or "wrong", that is almost beyond enforcement at this time. Another issue is that different polities do things different (forgive me for screwing this up): Virginia really doesn't have a "state" champion, but several regional champions that are the closest to the state champions that other states have. There are some national high school championships, with the Nike cross country championships being quite notable. There are umteen cheerleading nationals, not to mention nationals in chess, quizbowl, speech, science olympiad, academic decathlon, etc. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that there might not be a state championship in each class. Hard to believe that Texas, as big as it is, wouldn't have a state champ anyway! Alaska's would presumably have to fly to play each other; California? Gracious! Haven't seen any mention of state champs there at the hs level. There may be a good reason for that! If we step down for the states without state championships, schools from other states complain. "In Virginia, they..... Why can't we?" Student7 (talk) 20:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

California does state championships- example. It appears Alaska does too. tedder (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this would lead to anything more than what we are already seeing, provided it is clarified in article guidelines. The wording could be to the effect of "state championship or closest equivalent". In polities that award championships lower than the state/province/etc level, this could still be listed. Either the guidelines could note these exceptions, or some non-wikied advisory in the article could advise editors that "Regional" championships are the highest possible level, and thus can be entered here. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we are getting close to a consensus on this. This needs to be i18nized, but roughly, "First place in a state-level championship. If there is no state-level championship in the state, regional competition winners may be used." tedder (talk) 02:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(indent)Let me throw this out on the table: Major extra curricular championships should be appropriately listed in a "Sports" or "Athletics" section. Major extra curricular championship will be defined as the highest possible championship a team can win from that activity's organizing committee, or higher. I am sure this is not quite what we want, but perhaps it can be a starting point to fine tune consensus. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, much better. I'm horrible at wording things. Though I don't know what "or higher" accomplishes. tedder (talk) 03:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There are a great many activities and some sports (at least in the U.S.) with national competitions. In some cases the national competitions are notable.

Sound good. To internationalize it, I think the Brits prefer "Sport" rather than Athletics. Student7 (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There I go avoiding the other 95% of the world again. I forgot that "Athletics" in the rest of the world is what the U.S. calls "Track & Field". I fixed that. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't create an undue bias toward sports. There are many schools where the most notable activities are not sports. Racepacket (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Racepacket is correct. This would apply to all extracurricular activities ... sports should not have anything special in this regard. I will give this a few more days and insert this into the guidelines, barring any further objections or concerns:

Major extra curricular championships should be appropriately listed in a "Sports", "Athletics", or "Activities" section. Major extra curricular championships will be defined as the highest possible championship a team can win from that activity's organizing committee. In the United States, this would nominally be a "state championship". Individual awards should generally not be listed. National championships, when referenced, may also be listed.

I only insert the United States example in there because I think a vast majority of the problems are in articles about American schools ... absolutely not to be U.S. centric.LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

external links and school districts

Can I request third and fourth opinions at Talk:Centinela Valley Union High School District? tedder (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

See discussion at the page. I went ahead and removed them as there really is no justification for their inclusion. Any other editors that could chime in would be helpful. Seemed like a pretty straightforward case to me. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems less straightforward to me. Removing useful information from a stub article, especially links to official sites with reliable information about the subject of the article, does not facilitate its improvement. The time for dealing with GA and FA issues is later, after the bulk of the article has been created.--Hjal (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing an external link is not "removing useful information". In fact, the main problem was that the article lacked its own information and was instead relying almost exclusively on having external links. At the article talk page I gave examples of other ways those links could've been worked in as citations as well as creating articles about the associated districts. The many finer points of GA and FA definitely don't need to be addressed right away, but external links like these aren't simply a case of FA or GA status; they're part of a basic policy. As I said there, about the only external link you could justify beyond the district's official page would be a link to the official state report card if it is available online since it will have reliable, neutral info directly relevant to the school district itself rather than simply being related. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If an editor has links for article improvement, or any other suggestoins for article improvement, it seems to me that they can be left on the article talk page. I'm not sure that it is a good idea that intentionally putting things into an article that we know don't belong in a better article is a good idea, because editors will invariably come along and delete them to the ire of people who think it is OK to temporarily park them there. I don't mean this in any way to put people down ... but it seems to me that putting something in an article that is admittadly not advancing an article toward GA, and then hoping it won't be deleted by someone (or castigating someone for doing it) not a good idea. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jon. The use of external links is no excuse for compensation for lack of regular sourced content. In fact, there are very few external links that are required for any school article. Everyone thinks 'their' school is the best, even to the extent of creating multiple sock accounts to prove it; so much for our rules... Most school articles are created by SPA and kids - strange as it seems, many of the best schools in the world have the shoddiest Wikipedia articles!--Kudpung (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification of WP:EIA move to Template:Infobox school for Aussie Schools

G'day, happy new year, mates, and 'ava good one, etc., from WP:EIA

We're just letting you know that we've recently had a discussion about moving all Australian schools over to Template:Infobox school for the sake of consistency and because the however many templates we had were mostly redundant. Moondyne and I have since updated all ~1100 Australian schools with that infobox.

I've decided that I hate private schools who insist on having alternative names for their principals and I also can't stand mottos, generally. My psychologist has bought a new sports car on the expectation of the many many hours that I will spend on his couch talking out the PTSD that I've gained from doing however many hundreds of those conversions.

Looking forward to working with you further. -danjel (talk to me) 11:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent work! Congratulations on starting the new decade with a clean sheet for the Aussie schools. Rich Farmbrough, 15:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

Multicampus Schools

G'day Guys,

How do you deal with multicampus schools? In WP:EIA, we have Sydney Secondary College and Northern Beaches Secondary College on one side, being an overarching article and then separate articles for each of the campuses; and then Tintern Girls Grammar School and Caulfield Grammar School which have all campus information in one article.

There is a discussion ongoing at Talk:Xavier_College#Proposed_new_articles_for_Burke_Hall_and_Kostka_Hall_Campuses, and I'd invite anyone with a perspective or experience with multicampus schools. -danjel (talk to me) 04:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Xavier College is probably not the best example because the page is always an on going discussion about something. Among the hundreds of English school articles that I have expanded from stubs and the dozens I have written, I address the problem of multiple campuses quite easily; I put the main one (or the one where the main admin office is) in the infobox and treat the others like this and this, and this. There should be no need to create separate pages for te sake of creating separate pages. None of the pages will ever be too long to justify such a solution. If the school acquired its multi campuses through mergers, you can always create redirects. Pershore and Malvern are good examples. If I come across separate pages for the campuses of schools in England, I do a BRD merge of the pages. Generally, one comlete article that could eventually be got up to GA is a better idea than a bunch of perma stubs. --Kudpung (talk) 04:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Noted. Well said, and I generally agree.

Two editors there have displayed staggeringly WP:UNCIVIL behaviour by suggesting that, because I don't have intimate familiarity with the school, I'm not qualified to comment. I'm not interested in being pulled into a Flame war with trolls on something as simple as the concept that Wikipedia is the encylopedia anyone can edit. So I'm out.

Thanks for your comment anyway. -danjel (talk to me) 06:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion re: Aus schools and regions

G'day Guys. I'd be interested in any suggestions at WikiProject_Education_in_Australia#Primary_Schools_and_School_Regions. My post there sums up the reason why I want to move in this direction, but there are objections also, so I won't try to represent the arguments on either side here. -danjel (talk to me) 09:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Is graduated a requirement for notable alumni?

Perhaps I'm not taking the alumni part serious enough, but to included on a notable alumni list, does the subject actually have to had graduated? I have an example where it is sourced that the subject attended, but it is not asserted that he graduated. What is the procedure here? Leave in list, remove completely or put "attended" in parens? Or is there no procedure? Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This is already covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Who should be included? Parenthetical details about their attendance (if available) would be fine. Kanguole 16:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you --CutOffTies (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

best-schools.co.uk

We're using this in several articles, either as a link [1] or as in Reed's School without one. I can find a couple of minor newspaper articles but that's about all, the rest is use by schools, etc. Is this really a reliable source for league table style claims? Dougweller (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably not, and presumably unnecessary too, as results tables should be in newspapers. Kanguole 10:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that comment Kangoule, it echoes my sentiment entirely. I will ask you to chime in at one or two UK schools in Worcestershire that are waging a long term revert war with socks to keep all the league tables and promotional 'school brochure' nonsense in the articles. Likewise, we are making an effort to prevent the ext links sections from becoming a link farm of promotional/advertising school directories. With the Ofsted, the govt Schoolfinder, and the school's own web site, there are generally enough sources and ext links rolled into one for a neutral, encyclopedic entry. --Kudpung (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Which schools is this? Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bewdley School and Sixth Form Centre. One new editor who started posting the same things on Bewdley and all schools in Worcestershire in order to promote Bewdley, almost immediately after User:Worcsinfo was blocked for socking. --Kudpung (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've had a complaint from the rector of the Edinburgh Academy about removing best-schools. See my talk page. They also want their IP address unblocked - I blocked it a few weeks ago for vandalism - just a coincidence in this case. Dougweller (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if we should raise this at RSN ourselves? Dougweller (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Designation of the project's article guidelines

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines have been under going at lot of improvements lately. Originally I tagged the page with {{Essay}}, as while it provided helpful advice, it wasn't an official Wikipedia policy or guideline. More recently this was changed to a personalised {{Notice}}. Today however the {{Guideline}} tag was added which suggested the page was an official Wikipedia guideline. I've now removed this as designating the page a Wikipedia guideline suggests it has the consensus of the wider Wikipedia community outside this WikiProject, which isn't the case with this page. This page could become an official guideline, though it would need a more through review and discussion, with advertising at places such as WP:CENT. Consensus however would not be likely to form for the notability section, whatever it says, due a wide variety of opinions on the issue. However, I've found the {{WikiProject content advice}} template which seems to have made for pages like this, and I've now added it, with a similar one specifically for the notability section. CT Cooper · talk 21:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there someway to state that these article guideline reflect a certain level of consensus? I don't think that's being disingenuous, and it might add at least a little strength when some editor is using this consensus as justification for an edit. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding a notice underneath the standard tag noting that it has the consensus of this talk page, and possibly that any major changes should be discussed here, would be appropriate yes. CT Cooper · talk 11:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Lists of clubs

See: Cedarburg High School. IMHO, this is not what a school article is supposed to look like. Normally I would BRD delete these lists, but in this case, there would be nothing left of the article. I suggest we need something in the guidelines to discourage mention or over-mention of clubs. All schools have extracurricular clubs, many of which have as few as three or four members.

Comments please. --Kudpung (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes stubifying the article is the right thing to do. That article is better than some. tedder (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tedder ... I don't have a problem with removing something that doesn't belong, even if it means bringing the article back to Stub. On the other hand, I guess the question is does i or doesn't it belong?

I agree with Kudpung. Lists like this don't belong. For one thing, at some (a lot? a few?) schools, the list of clubs changes every year. I don't think unstable lists like that are not what we want ot be maintaining. IMO, you can note and reference an approximate number of clubs, and if a club has won a state championship (or equivalent), or (in exceptional cases) was somehow nationally notable, that could be noted and referenced. I had thought about using a collapsable table, but I think that someone brought up that this is already precluded by policy. LonelyBeacon (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Assessments and WP Release rankings

The Toolserver bot that ranks articles for Release 0.8 can show some intersting things about interest in school articles. See this example.--Hjal (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Alumni lists

I was wondering if we could generate discussion on arriving at some level of consensus on how alumni lists should be formatted. I have these three ideas to start the ball rolling:

1. List the alum, include the graduation year, if available and referenced, and as brief a description as possible (Marie Curie - scientist or David Beckham - football player, etc)

2. List the alum, include the graduation year, if available and referenced, and write a short prosaic description of their notability (John F. Kennedy ('35) was the 35th President of the United States.)

3. There is really no preferred way to do this.

In my editing, I have tended to do #2, but I am happy to go with the consensus. Any thoughts on this? LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the answer is #3, but I'm a fan of #2. Some lists are sorted by grad year, most alphabetically. I'm a fan of alphasorting, as the year isn't always known so you end up with an incomplete sort. I try to limit the prose to about a short-length sentence (10 words?) or one line on my screen. When it becomes three lines of text on a wide monitor, it's a sign it should be on the biography page. Oh- '35 is terrible. I'm sure you meant 1935, right? Finally, a reference for the person attending the school should be given. I'm not terribly picky about the reliability of the source (a yearbook is fine, online is better) but it keeps the cruft down. tedder (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with tedder. I alphbetize by last name since not every notable alum will have graduated from the school or the year is unknown. Definitely use the full 4-digit year, especially on schools that have been around over 100 years. In actual lists, I tend to have the description be just a sentence (usually not even a complete sentence), that explains why the person is notable (not what they did at the school). Not too brief like just "football player", but rather "professional football player in the Premier League". I'd mention the club if the person was mostly associated with that club. Too much info on the person (I've seen full paragraphs on similar notable people lists) gets the article off-topic and is more apprioriate for the bio article; too little and it's too vague. Each one also needs a reliable reference that verifies that they attended the school and the year they graduated (if applicable). I think yearbooks are acceptable, but only if nothing else is available. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This brings up a good point that I am hoping comes out in discussion ... some editor at some point in the past (I guess I could look it up if I were compelled) got quite angry with me about using the whole year ... thought it should just be the last two digits. Your point is well taken on this not being good as there are plenty of schools that are over 100 years old. The problem I have with yearbooks is (I'll throw a name out there) .... there could be dozens of people named "Paul McCartney" in the world ... a yearbook could list a Paul McCartney, but unless it is confirmed elsewhere, there is no way to know that is the notable Paul McCartney (I know, bad example). If the yearbook had a layout regarding that alum returning to school and doing something (or similar), then I think it becomes a good source. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree with you on the yearbook or even online alumni directories. Unless there is a note or something that can clarify, I much prefer using some kind of other publication since many famous names can have duplicates at schools. A lot of schools have alumni or Hall of Fame websites that are available and many times local newspapers will have stories on notable alumni. A yearbook could be helpful in establishing a graduation year provided that another source verifies that person is the notable person in the Wikipedia article. As for the year, yes, using the two-digit may be customary in high school, but in an encyclopedia '10 is ambiguous and could mean 1910 or 2010 (or even 1810 for a really old school!). The main article I have edited has a notable 1900 graduate. Not many average readers mainly associate '00 with 1900 anymore. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that's the problem with a yearbook being Paul McCartney. The Hall of Fame thing has been used in a lot of articles I've seen lately- I'm okay with it as long as it is cited on each alumnus in the HOF, not just "the following are members of.." because it's easy to sneak in additional people. I thought everyone understood the 2-digit year problem because of Y2K? I'm sure there's a MOS entry somewhere about it, no big deal. Obviously, McCartney's article would make it clear that '65 is 1965, but it only saves one character anyhow. tedder (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

For the entries themselves there are no prescribed formats. For dates, as Wiki is not a paper encyclopedia, there is never a reason to use abbreviations, and as far as I can recall without looking it up, years should always be written in full. Some schools in the UK are nearly a thousand yearw old. Kudpung (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

~~Number 2~~, and agree with tedder and definitely agree regarding yyyy rather than 'yy. I worry that Alumni lists will be extremely hard for Australian schools. Our schools don't really concentrate very much on their alumni (maybe they should), so it is very difficult to tell who came from where in what year. -danjel (talk to me) 06:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. I think of all the major sections in a school article, the notable alumni section is probably the least important. It's interesting to see if famous people went to a certain school, but in the end I really don't learn a lot about the school because someone famous went there. Plus, a lot of the notable people in each country will likely not be known to international readers, particularly professional athletes in the various pro sports leagues. As for the Hall of Fame sites, yes, I agree with tedder. All HOF sites are not created equally and each alum needs to have a valid citation. Not only should the site list the person, but also a little about them so that a connection can be made. Most do that, but not all. Another big point for alumni lists is to separate successful people from notable people. I've run into quite a few alumni lists that have valid sources on successful alumni who aren't notable. The place to try and assert someone's notability is an actual article, not a notable people or alumni list. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Bottom line is that whatever we decide here will never become policy, or perhaps not even a guideline, but maybe an inclusion in an essay on recommendations, such as WP:WPSCH/AG, which is based not necessarily on consensus, but on practice that has been tacitly accepted by the regular editors and school page creators for years. One of the major problems with school articles is that they are nearly all created by SPA, the quality is low because they are mainly created by students, and hardly anybody at all reads any instructions before creating their first Wikipedia article. The SPA rarely even return to their 'creation' later to see if it's still there! Most of the edits that happen to a school page later are by maintenance bots and vandals.Kudpung (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that notability must always be established with an independent article, but I recently came across the maintainance template {{Alumni}}, which I think goes too far in the other direction by requiring "independent reliable sources cited within this article showing they are notable and an alumnus". I would say a citation for attendance is needed, but not for notability if the linked article provides such evidence. Kanguole 16:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Most alumni lists include a plethora of people who shouldn't be on there; much of the time it's simply a cut-and-paste or rewording of a school's own alumni page or book where they highlight their successful alumni (universities also have this). Just because so-and-so is now a "highly respected" doctor or something like that (i.e. successful) doesn't mean that person is notable, even with a reliable source proving the person went to the school and is now successful. Just because something has a reliable source does not equal notability or a need to be included. If notability can be established on an alumni list, there's no reason an article cannot be created at some point about that person. Yes, there are exceptions to the general rule, but those are few and far between. For the sake of avoiding these massive cruft lists it's a good idea to stick to people who actually have articles and encourage that, especially on the vast majority of school articles that are edited by newbies and anons. I've cleaned up so many school alumni lists that were far more promotional than they were informative and encyclopedic. My understanding of alumni lists is that they are to connect articles on Wikipedia, not be tools for boosterism. A good guideline would be to stick to those with articles and who have reliable sources verifying when they went to that school. If there is a question about whether someone should be on the list, editors should be encouraged to ask (though if there is a question, that's a good sign it probably shouldn't be on the list). --JonRidinger (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to rehash that again. I meant to ask what you thought of the wording on {{Alumni}} requiring citations for notability in the article containing the list. Kanguole 17:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Over the years the bias has certainly gone towards "must not be a redlink". I think part of this is that we have about eleventy billion pages on enwiki, so it's becoming less likely that a notable article hasn't been created- and if so, it should. I'm in favor of this- there's a process for handling non-notable biographies as articles, but there's no similar process for an entry on another page aside from edit warring. It still happens, but it's easier now than years ago.

As far as the alumni template, RS to establish N isn't necessary if the article exists. A RS or semi-RS is still needed to tie the person to the school.

In response to Kudpung, local consensus is a great thing. I don't think it's just SPAs that create school articles- I've created hundreds of high school articles (one state down, 49 to go) and I've adopted hundreds more. We're here to improve things, and it's easier with consensus or even a mini-consensus on how to handle things. That way we, the productive and prolific editors, spend our time improving articles to one standard rather than flip-flopping articles between personal standards. tedder (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The template was created relatively recently by one person, it can always be modified if consensus allows. CT Cooper · talk 19:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The template is fine with me, but most times what happens is a beginning editor says "I have a reliable, independent source, therefore the person is notable." Without a separate Wikipedia article, establishing notability is difficult on an alumni list since it usually takes more than one source to confirm notability. Again it falls under the "just because something has a source doesn't mean it should be in the article". You can find a reliable source on just about anyone. In most cases I simply remove names that have just ELs or are redlinked unless there is a really good chance they could get an article soon (like a professional athlete that has only recently become notable, for instance). Tedder is correct that it would be nice to have a more consistent guideline so that more time can be spent actually improving articles instead of edit wars. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

IMO an unnecessary template. I usually just go ahead and delete any alumni that are unsourced redlinks, or where their alumnus status is not sourced in their Wikipedia page - stating my rationale of course in my edit summary. If the addition was clearly made in GF, I might leave a friendly message on the editor's tp.

@Tedder: I don't quite understand the part of your message above that is addressed at me - more on your tp. --Kudpung (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. My tone was off above and I didn't even know it. tedder (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think LonelyBeacon was proposing a policy change, but it does seem like this should at least be incorporated into an essay. Prefer #1 over #2. Kennedy may be a bad choice since it would seem necessary to distinguish between people of the same name. But extended bios are distracting to the school itself and annoying. Also inserting "place kicker for the NY Knicks" this year and next year changing it to "bench warmer for the NY Colts" or whatever, seems silly. Why not "professional football player" and let the interested reader link? Having said that, I think that "John F. Kennedy, politician" is a bit too understated, even for me! So a little leeway should be allowed for the top 1% of alumni. Student7 (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to push any agenda ... just conversation to see if there is consensus one way or the other. As far as inclusion criteria, I have always used the rule of thumb that a blue link can stay, and a red link only stays if there is reasonable belief that they fulfill general notability, and just don't have an article yet. Sourcing is important, and while I wish I could say I am consistent, I try to tag sections lacking references, and if a section has been tagged for over a year, I am likely to remove unreferenced alumni.

Even if there is no consensus, that too is important to note ... there are some editors I ahve run into who claim there is a policy for one form over the other ... when no such policy exists. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Changing my view to Number 1. Student7's argument is quite convincing re: footballers (although I have no idea what a "place kicker" is). -danjel (talk to me) 00:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"...there are some editors I ahve run into who claim there is a policy for one form over the other ... when no such policy exists." I think we probably all have; it's a common problem on Wikipedia, especially on WP:AfD where WP:SPA authors are trying to defend their own bios or promotional articles about their schools, companies, or bands. More reason to get our WP:WPSCH/AG confirmed as an official guideline that is based on official policy. Kudpung (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Petroc College - move proposal

A debate on a proposed page move is taking place at Talk:Petroc College. Wikipedia editors are invited to review the proposal and offer their comments. --Kudpung (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Following local talk page consensus reaffirming Wikipedia policy, the page was moved in accordance with disambiguation guidelines. --Kudpung (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ranking/grade

Can you please rank and grade the article Mesa Distance Learning Program? Thx! --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 03:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've copyedited it for you. We'll let someone else do the assessment. Well written! --Kudpung (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I left the class as Start; added Mid importance. Great topic. See Talk:Mesa Distance Learning Program. SBaker43 (talk) 07:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

DashBot problem

Can anyone explain how DashBot can patrol inadequate articles such as Sudarshana Model School as suitable for the encyclopedia? --Kudpung (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

User:DASHBot#Tasks states that the bot "[p]atrol[s] pages that are marked as CSD, AFD, or PROD".

This article was prodded by you and then deprodded by the creator. A removed prod cannot be restored. I have redirected the page to Rahula College#Primary section as a compromise. Cunard (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Solved: creator wrongly removed PROD notice after the bot marked as patrolled.--Kudpung (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Concordia College, Adelaide

I have started a discussion at Talk:Concordia_College,_Adelaide#Student_Leadership regarding an article owner's reversion ([[2]]) and insistence that a list of students be mentioned on the page. I believe that this is a breach of WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI as well as potentially causing issues in respect to the mention of non-notable underage students on a wikipedia article. Thoughts? -danjel (talk to me) 10:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to ignore our guidelines here and I agree with your BLP concerns. Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue is resolved at Concordia College, I think. But, I think we need to add it to the guideline. It needs a fuller discussion, however. -danjel (talk to me) 16:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Relevant policy linked - no discussion necessary. --Kudpung (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue in this case was a list of students, which was already adequately addressed by the guideline. I think that your addition requiring independent notability of anyone mentioned goes beyond the relevant global guidelines and policy, so I've toned it down to RS+BLP. Kanguole 12:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

My concern here is mainly in regards to putting information out there regarding underage individuals. Schools in my state are very careful about providing information regarding current underage students on their websites because there can be child protection/welfare ramifications. I've had to deal with, in the past, some cyber bullying that resulted from vandalism of a mention of a student's name on wikipedia, so I'm personally concerned. As such, I've added a sentence asking editors to be extremely mindful of the mention of students' names. -danjel (talk to me) 12:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that requiring independent notability for any mention of a person is too much. The head teacher for instance is frequently mentioned in the infobox of school articles, even though (s)he will usually not pass notability guidelines on his/her own. As long as any mention complies with WP:BLP, WP:IRS e.t.c. then it should be fine. I also agree that users should be even more careful with mention of people under the age of eighteen in any case. CT Cooper · talk 14:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

As CT Cooper has stated, the notability guidelines take care of all of this. No teachers or students unless notable. I haven't checked this article, but it should be about the school, not the individual students. This is even true for record-setting athletes or award-winning teachers, unless notable. Even then, it must have more to do with the school than the athlete/teacher (who has her/his own article but can be listed in "notables" if that section exists). I only allow the current (nn) principal (or equivalent) to be listed. I have allowed lists of former nn principals, but not as sure of that as I was. Student7 (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is what is clearly intended by the recommendation I made that was expanded by CT Cooper to be even more explicit. For students it adequate to state: A Grade 10 Geography student scored 14 goals in the 2012 International Schools FA Trophy, thus making ABC High School the first school in history to win the series for three consecutive years, or similar, or Three students from the fifth form were awarded the George Cross for bravery for rescuing and saving the lives of 17 people when fire broke out in the nearby pizzeria - for example. A WP:RfC will shortly be taking place to have the WP:SCH/AG confirmed as guideline policy. Kudpung (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned Pages - Schools

Just been going through the list of Orphaned pages and have come across some that fall into WP:Schools, that have been tagged for four years. I would like to sort through the 500 odd articles from September 2006.

Aspengrove School - Only one page linked to it. The article could also do with expanding and more references added. I removed one of external links as it no longer worked.
Forus Upper Secondary School - I have added a Wp:School template on the talk-page as it was missing one. More pages are needed to link to it (3 are currently linked. The article also needs expanding, updating and also more references added.
Free School of Evanston - Only two pages linked to it. No references or external links. Also needs expanding and updating.
GBR College - Single liner, needs much more information.
Government Degree College Kathua - Not sure if this is under your section, if it is it is missing a template on the talk page. Needs references and expanding.
Glenwood Elementary- One of the better articles, has some history but could still be expanded. Needs references.
Glen Brae Middle School - Also a short article. Has a merge proposal on the article page dated March 08.

If you could make some changes to these articles, it would be great as there is a massive backlog of articles requiring attention. The links above were all that I spotted on the first page of September 2006, I will post more when I find them, and I am sure there will be more.
Lord Castellan Creed (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Lord Castellan Creed,Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. Consider merging the basic details and redirecting very short articles about middle schools and primary (elementary schools) to the page about their school district (USA), or the locality (rest of the world). if you need any help don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. >Kudpung (talk) 12:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

School article good?

I am new to Wikipedia, and I recently made an article, Gorton High School. I wanted to know if I did anything wrong or if anything was missing.

Thanks! Argentineboy (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Read the comments on your talk page and/or the article talk page and address any points that need attention. Above all, read the school article guidelines here.--Kudpung (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Saunders Trades and Technical High School

It is marked for speedy deletion...what can I do?!

Argentineboy (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Read the comments on your talk page and/or the article talk page and address any points that need attention. Above all, read the school article guidelines here.--Kudpung (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Highland View Academy

Needs expert comments and !votes to reach a consensus one way or the other, based on existing practice and policy.--Kudpung (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edwin Markham Elementary School

A defunct elementary (primary) school. Participation in the AfD debate is invited. --Kudpung (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Lokmanya Tilak High School

Hey please help me about my Lokmanya Tilak High School article. i have gone thru many blue links. still i m confused about the things to clean up. Karthikndr (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you need help with? -danjel (talk to me) 20:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

See may talk page. --Kudpung (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Rose Hill School (Alderley)

There are two topics under discussion, regarding this article; please see Talk:Rose Hill School (Alderley)#Names of new owners of the building and Talk:Rose Hill School (Alderley)#Links to maps.

I'd be grateful if some other editors could add their opinions. Thanks, Chzz ► 15:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Schools by city

The Category:Schools in England by county and Category:Schools in the United States by county are included in the Category:Schools by city. This does not seem right, but there is no category for schools in either of these countries by city. Should there be, or should the category for schools in each city in these two countries be included directly, as Category:Schools in New York City already has? Coyets (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

And Category:Schools in Canada by city is even stranger, containing whole provinces as sub-categories. It would be "simple" to change "Schools by city" to something like "Schools by city or county" or "Schools by politcal subdivision", but not really a durable solution. But, until somebody is up to creating a full hierarchy for schools in and by nation:state:county/parish/whatever:city, perhaps we could change "Schools by city" to a more inclusive category--there's only 8 subcategories to fix. There are probably lots more "Schools in foo" cats that would fit here. Note that NYC is a special case, since the city includes counties, rather than the other way around, right?--Hjal (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

A look at the City article may be helpful here. The meanings of terms such as city and county vary hugely from country to country, and even within countries such as the USA. It's almost meaningless to treat such categories as meaning anything like the same thing in different countries. HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can't imagine a use for a disparate collection like Category:Schools by city or Category:Schools by county. I'd surely start any search from Category:Schools by country. Kanguole 00:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

But, there are 93,000 schools in the US[3], and most of the states have over 1,000. England has more than 25,000.[4] So we need a geographic hierarchy--it just won't be the same for every country. So Category:Schools in Alameda County, California should be in Category:Schools in California by county, which should be in both Category:Schools in California and Category:Schools in the United States by county (I just added it there). The main sort for US schools should really be by state and school district, but many people don't know the names of their own school district and certainly won't recognize lots of the districts in other states or countries. For England, using counties seems pretty good.--Hjal (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The main problem appears to be one of linguistics. There are only 66 cities in the UK, but AFAICS, almost any settlement in the US can call itself a city. For the UK where there are no school districts, the locality seems to be the solution. The issue of cats doesn't stop here though, there are hundreds of school cats, but as a non-expert on cats, I can't find out how to simply get a list of all school articles. Kudpung (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2011

Soldier, Kansas is a fine example of what can be called a city in the USA. The article tells us "Soldier is a city in Jackson County, Kansas, United States. The population was 122 at the 2000 census...the city has a total area of 0.2 square miles." (My emphasis) Dunno if they have a school. HiLo48 (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that since these are buildings, they also roll up into the building categories. So for the above example, they are also in Category:Buildings and structures in Alameda County, California. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The relevant unit for England/Wales (not sure if this also includes Scotland) is the "local education authority", roughly equivalent to US school district. Some of these are counties, some are cities, some are boroughs within large cities. Just "counties" or just "cities" won't do the job. -- Alarics (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

So, should Category:Schools by city be included in Category:Buildings and structures by city? Coyets (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion yes, they should be in Category:Buildings and structures by populated place since they are not all in cities. See Category:Buildings and structures in Paradise, Nevada for an example without subcategories. The question is, do they need their own category? I'm not convinced that they do. For NYC I can see it, but for Goldfield, Nevada, probably not. I think the best choice would be to place them in a general building by location category and only subdivide as needed. As an aside if you are going to work on school categories. There is also Category:Buildings and structures by year of completion. Since schools are completed, they can generally be placed in one of those categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

LEAs (or just LAs) aren't responsible for independent schools, free schools or academies, so it might be better to use the geographical area administered by the LA. - Scribble Monkey (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

In most places in the US, outside of the Northeast, schools are often (not always) administered by a countywide school district, so there are often no city schools. So no rule fits all. It sounds to me that editors are happy with UK and Canadian school categorization. So while we may use them as good examples, we don't need to "straighten them out." They are already straight.

Categories are universally screwed up in Wikipedia. The result of most of us ignoring them most of the time. They just have not received the editorial attention they need. They need to make sense. If they don't, don't follow another (bad) example, correct your school, county, or whatever as best as possible. I appreciate you cannot change the system yourself. It may be just too large. But you may be able to comment on it someplace.

And BTW, there are (a very few) people with "agendas" who maintain categories. The agendas are sometimes strange and nonsensical and illogical. You may not be able to change them alone. Student7 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Counties, as an administrative/political unit, were well-understood in English-speaking countries. I think Western Europe had "counts" at one time, so they were once understood there, as well. Counties may ill-serve other countries, but they often well-suit the US for subdividing when a division is needed and other divisions have too many or too few. Student7 (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making me realise the connection between counts and counties! Obvious really, when I think about it. But here in Australia we've never had counts, and at least in my state of Victoria, we abandoned counties as administrative designations some time ago. So, horses for courses. Counties work where you are. They don't work here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Following the various comments, I have added a Category:Schools by country and city and moved some categories from Category:Schools by city to the new category. I have also searched for Category:Schools by Foo categories and added the Schools by city category to them when Foo is obviously a city. I have also added the Schools by city category to the Category:Categories by city, although I think it ought to be Category:Topics by city. I have Category:Schools in England by county and Category:Schools in the United States by county untouched, and perhaps some other editor could make a better job of improving the navigation through Wikipedia with the use of categories. Coyets (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

A "Middle Class" School

Maybe you guys can help me out. I'm trying to resolve an ambiguity on the Los Alamos High School article. In section "Demographics" it describes the student body as homogeneously upper middle class. I think there's some validity to the claim and I think it helps describe the school, but the term is problematic. "middle class" doesn't really have a consistent definition, much less "upper middle class". Likewise, it's not clear what would constitute "homogeneously" middle class versus something else.

Here's my proposed solution. Keep the term, but associate it with some solid statistics to provide the adequate context. So I could say "the student body is homogeneously middle class with less than 2% belonging to low income household and 70% with household incomes exceeding $75,000." How does that sound? Greg Comlish (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Does the attendance area match the Los Alamos, New Mexico CDP? If so, the demographics of the area are available. The under -18 demographics for the district is also avaliable at NCES. They show "N/A" for number eligible for free or reduced-price lunches here, but that could mean "not available" rather than "not applicable." I suspect that they have none eligble.--Hjal (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Those are some useful tips. Thanks! Greg Comlish (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, what I ended up using was the number of "economically disadvantaged" students attending the high school. This information is easy to find because the category is established and mandated by No Child Left Behind. The School Report should have that informaiton. Greg Comlish (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Reference for Post Graduation Statistics?

Hi, I'm working on the Los Alamos High School article. Recent feedback from the assessment department recommended that we get an independent source to support the description of post-graduate student direction. Currently we have a poll conducted by the school itself. Do you know an authoritative source for this information? Greg Comlish (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm leaving some general comments on the article itself. In all honesty, I don't think the survey is really all that important in the bigger picture. Somewhere, I would imagine the state keeps track of students who go to 4-year colleges, which would be far more authoritive than a non-scientific survey of what students want to do after high school. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The article definitely needs more work to align with WP:WPSCH/AG. For instance, is there anything worth keeping from the club section? tedder (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you guys can clarify something for me. Comments by JonRidinger suggest there is "promotional" language on the LAHS article. If I had to guess, I would imagine Jon is concerned with statements like "nationally ranked" and "strong academic reputation". Is this correct? If so, then I'm sort of at a loss for how to address this because the strong academic reputation of LAHS is part of what makes LAHS unique. I think the phrase is justified given the praise of Newsweek, The Washington Post, US News and World Report, etc, which are prominently referenced in the article. Can you more specifically identify the "promotional language" in the article and suggest how I can get my point across without it? Greg Comlish (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I responded at the article talk page. Be sure to read WP:PEACOCK, WP:WEASEL, and WP:BOOSTER to get a good understanding of what kinds of phrases and words to avoid. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

undue coverage at a school

Talk:Troy High School (California) (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)

Can one or more editors take a look at the asbestos coverage at this high school? Specifically, note these edits: [5] [6]. I'm specifically concerned about overcoverage of a run of the mill incident, and the original research isn't helping either. tedder (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems OK to me... Doesn't seem like WP:OR, because the references seem good. The language is neutral enough also. Do you have an alternate wording that you'd prefer? -danjel (talk to me) 00:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

One would hope that incompetent removal of asbestos is NEVER seen as run of the mill. I'm too cannot see what the problem is, apart from the problem of seemingly justifiable damage to the image of whoever was responsible for that incident. HiLo48 (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe a mention of the asbestos controversy is acceptable, though not in its current presentation. The sentence:

School and district officials still denies the existence of asbestos in the building and refuse to disclose the full extend of the exposure

is not neutral because it violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch)#Synonyms of said with the use of "denies" and "refuse". This article from the The Orange County Register is the only reliable source about this controversy.

http://www.asbestos.net/news/2007/08/23/dangerous-public-schools and http://www.maacenter.org/news/high-school-asbestos-concerns-linger.html have dubious reliability. Cunard (talk) 01:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. What rewording would you propose? I think, supported by OC Register, those two sources are OK to use. It's not as if they're being used to support a dubious statement on their own. -danjel (talk to me) 01:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It certainly demands an improvement in the grammar. (I always find it ironic that some of the worst grammar and spelling in Wikipedia occurs in school related articles) HiLo48 (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I propose removing the sentence because it is neither supported by The Orange County Register source nor the sources of dubious reliability.

Furthermore, when a source of higher quality is available, there is no reason to use two sources of lesser quality. That all the factual content in that paragraph is supported by the OC Register source means that the other two sources are unnecessary and should be removed. Cunard (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think the whole "controversies" section at this article is way overblown and not needed. It should be trimmed down and integrated where appropriate into the history section. Just because something has a reliable source does not mean it belongs in an article. School articles aren't for every happening at a school. Usually, events like this are mentioned if they influenced development of the school (part of the history) and/or were part of a larger, notable issue. None of these appear really meet either one in my opinion; they were events that have faded back into the realm of historical trivia. Most larger public high schools (and many small ones) have "controversies" of some kind at one time or another; that doesn't mean they should be included in an article about them. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur with your statement that the "controversies" section is undue weight, JonRidinger. Troy High School (California)#Controversy states that "Troy High School has not been immune from controversy, as detailed below:". I doubt that any high school has been immune from controversy and believe this sentence is not neutrally written. While the "Asbetos" and "Racial slurs by school administrators" have little historical importance since they are only covered by local sources, the "Oracle controversy" may be worthy of a mention in a history section since it received nonlocal coverage from the Associated Press. Everything else in the "Controversies" section can probably be removed. Cunard (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think controversy sections in general are a bad idea because they have strong tendency to unbalance articles, and such content can usually be better integrated into other areas of the article. For instance this school is currently missing a history section, and much of the content in the controversy section could be briefly mentioned there instead. I agree in any case that the current controversy section does not comply with WP:NPOV and needs to be trimmed. It is also rather troubling that this section seems to have been maintained by accounts that have not done very much else. CT Cooper · talk 11:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Tedder, JonR, Cunard, and CT. Undue, and I think the controversies section in unnecessary. This is a very large school and therefore what its student and staff do is likely to get into the local newspaper at any time. All schools have skeletons in their cupboards, but generally at Wikipedia the effort appears to be to keep school articles as neutral as possible. This article also has other defects, such as sport mixed in with the section on 'academics'. Perhaps this discussion should be copied to the article talk page. Kudpung (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-notable school - AfD?

Malmesbury Church of England Primary School is a small primary school. In general UK primary schools, which go up to the age of 10, are not considered notable on Wikipedia. I can't see anything that makes this one different. If anyone else concurs I wouldn't object if you took it to PROD or AfD. I'd rather someone else did it because of one problematic editor who will undoubtedly throw his toys out of his pushchair if I do it. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 21:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused- why don't you do it? It's meatpuppetry to ask someone else to do it, right? BTW, I try to redirect a school article to the community first; if they get reverted, I then take it to AFD. tedder (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Not meatpuppetry at all, I'm just trying to avoid conflict with an editor that is deliberately trying to cause trouble (outside this article). By redirect, do you mean to merge the content into the town's article then redirect it the school article to the town? That seems a reasonable approach and could prompt WP:BRD which is no bad thing. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 21:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Search for sources first Bob, you never know if you might turn up something surprising that makes it notable - stranger things have happened. If nothing comes up, redirect it, not forgetting to leave the {{R from school}} under, or after the redirect link. Leave the talk page intact. According to this new consensus, it shouldn't need to go to AfD. WP:BRD and don't feel intimidated by other editors :) And then a Tedder says, if it gets reverted, send it to AfD where the close will probably again be for a redirect.--Kudpung (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the advice. I have started working through the primary schools in Somerset. So far so good. This now gets me thinking. In many cases I think independent prep schools are just as non-notable as state-funded primary schools. There are quite a few in Somerset (see {{Schools in Somerset}}) and most, e.g. Downs Preparatory School, are merely stubs with little or no attempt made to establish notability. A couple of the schools, notably Millfield Preparatory School might be able to stand alone if better references are provided, or are candindates for merging into the main (upper) school article. What has been done in other counties or countries? Any advice/insight from the members of this project would be welcome. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 10:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"independent prep schools are just as non-notable as state-funded primary schools." - or as notable. Whether the glass is half empty or half full ;) Kudpung (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

British schools: Alumni vs Former pupils

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 10#Former pupils by school in the United Kingdom. No consensus seems to have been reached yet. Please consider chiming in. --Kudpung (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for review

I'm not sure if this is the correct project to ask at but I'll try. Please direct me to the correct location if I'm wrong. The article Camp Moshava, Wild Rose, WI is an article about a summer camp. It seems notable and is sourcing everything but somehow has become a WP:ADVERT and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Any help in assessing how to proceed would be appreciated. If you look at it and it seems fine, I'd be appreciative to know. Thanks, Joe407 (talk) 20:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. As a camp, is not an established institution, so it's probably not within our remit, but a first look does suggest that it may be a bit spammy. Perhaps the people at WP:EAR can help more. --Kudpung (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PTV Marathi Medium Secondary School

PTV Marathi Medium Secondary School is at AfD for discussion as non notable. --Kudpung (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ages 5-12 - surely that isn't a secondary school? --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 20:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

In the infobox it says 5 - 16. That makes it the equivalent of a primary+middle school. Possible a case for an uncontroversial redirect rather than using up resources to conduct an AfD. --Kudpung (talk) 22:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems very odd to describe a school that educates pupils up to age 16 as anything other than a secondary school. Even describing it as a "middle school" would be stretching the definition way too far in almost all parts of the world. (It's increasingly common for schools to have junior departments, kindergartens and even nurseries attached or under the same branding, but that doesn't make the senior section of the school any less senior.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes the word "middle school" can have a different meaning in one country than another. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not questioning what the school chooses to call itself (otherwise I'd end up having to question all the many secondary schools which use "College" in their name as well), just some of the characterisation of the school in comments here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

'College' is a BE/AE linguistic phenomenon. --Kudpung (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Not entirely. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Montgomery School District high school boundaries

Hi! The Montgomery Public Schools has uploaded its middle school and elementary school boundary maps, but it has not yet posted its high school boundaries online.

The district sent a high school map to me. Is it sufficient for sourcing, or should I request that the district post the HS map online? - I am using maps to source the Pike Road, Alabama and Mt. Meigs, Alabama articles.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If it is "published" in the usual sense, and not just someone's rough notes, it can be referenced. The best references, unfortunately, are often not online. Student7 (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It's an official school district publication, and it is available if you e-mail the district and ask for it. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If it's an official publication of the district, there shouldn't be any problem using it as a source. Like Student7 said, many of the best sources aren't online, though using available census Bureau maps, public domain maps can be created if needed. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving of Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines

There has been some interest expressed in working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines and getting it to guideline status. In order for this to happen I have proposed moving it out of the WikiProject Schools space and to make it a standalone page, like almost all guidelines and guideline proposals. This would also involve giving the page its own talk page, rather than just having it re-direct here as it does at the moment, though it could still be tagged as relevant to WikiProject Schools. The benefit of moving it from its current title when trying to get it to guideline status is to make clear that it reflects (or, will reflect) wider community consensus, and is not just the opinions of a few editors in the project. I propose moving it to Wikipedia:School article guidelines, to match Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines (which was previously at Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Article guidelines).

Since this is a big page move, I'm raising it here first. Would anyone object to moving the page as proposed, or have other ideas? CT Cooper · talk 15:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Move supported. --Kudpung (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - Glanis^Talk 16:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Support. Seems to make sense. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
~~Support~~, but it might be worth having a brief discussion here before moving it, so we can update it, if necessary. I'd like to read the College guideline and review our featured articles first and then come back to this tonight or over the weekend.--Hjal (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Support. This is clear. Hjal, perhaps the discussion could take place on the new talk page? tedder (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Support LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Support -danjel (talk to me) 05:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment After following some links and finding others, it seems that Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines is just another Wikiproject guideline. It's not in the Manual of Style, but is, even though they changed the name with a page move, still here: Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects. For some reason, we are not listed there. There are almost no guidelines for the content of project-related articles at Category:Wikipedia content guidelines, with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Content guide and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines being the only obvious exceptions. These are huge projects compared to ours, with hundreds of members, dozens of departments or task forces, and thousands of featured and good articles.--Hjal (talk) 06:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
The current page is in Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects, though is under W. This project is small compared to others, and the level of activity can be an issue in getting the consensus to promote something into a guideline, as was found in the past with WP:NC(S). However, the level of activity is not the only issue; it is also worth taking into account the number of articles which will be covered by such a guideline. WikiProject Video games currently covers 52,140 pages (source: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment), but 23,666 of these pages are images, and they have a bot going around tagging their images, while WPSCH does not. When you take off images, WPVG covers only 28,474 pages. WikiProject Military history is very a large project, and covers 111,598 articles, and that figure doesn't include categories, images e.t.c. (source: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment). WPSCH covers 31,348 pages, which is less than WPMILHIST but more than WPVG. However, from experience of finding articles untagged and the obvious lower levels of activity on this project, which results in less users tagging articles for it, I think that figure seriously underestimates the number of pages that falls under this project. A conservative estimate would be that 25% of school articles are unaccounted for, though that figure could easily be 50%. The overall point of these figures is that the need for a guideline could be there, even if the activity on the project itself isn't high.

I take note that very few WikiProject specific content/style guidelines are outside the WikiProject space, and it appears that the location of the universities' page is a rare occurrence. Furthermore, I'm surprised that WPVG and WPMILHIST have Wikipedia guidelines within their own project space. It is probably a matter of personal preference of if this project wants to follow WPUNI or stay with the majority. The more clear need is to have a dedicated talk page, which can be created easily, wherever the page is located. CT Cooper · talk 17:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

take a look at Hawthorne school

Can someone take a look at Hawthorne Math and Science Academy? I'm tired of this, and I don't understand what more I can do- I've replied in edit summaries, on the user's talk page, etc. tedder (talk) 00:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the hatnote issue for you. Two organisations with initials HMSA, so I turned HMSA into a disambiguation page meaning there is no need for a dablink template on the school's article. I think the wider issue of non-notable / trivial content can be handled by a bunch of us staying on top of the article. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 07:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Douglas S. Freeman High School

Hi, I am interested in working with a more accomplished WikiProject Schools editor to fix the article on {{Douglas S. Freeman High School}}, my current high school. If anyone wishes to help, please message me on my talk page. Thanks, Rsteilberg 18:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Rsteilberg means Douglas S. Freeman High School. It seems like a fairly good article already, but I've offered to help. -danjel (talk to me) 01:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Higley Unified School District

I had the "criticism" section rewritten, but it still does not feel like it belongs in the article. Do you agree that it breaks WP:NPOV? Raymie (t • c) 17:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

In general, criticism sections are a bad idea for structuring an article; better to deal with both sides together. But in this case the section consists entirely of WP:BLP violations. Kanguole 21:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

high school headache

Can someone assess Fullerton High School, California? Specifically, items in this edit. tedder (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I am going back to assess. I removed the link to the basketball team, as that was obviously not needed. The alum was a different story. It looks like the alum is notable (albeit redirected to a performance group). I have generally allowed alumni who are members of (for example) notable rock bands to stay listed. I think this is even more in the same vein (a husband and wife magician team ... with the team meeting notability). I did a small rewrite, but would like others to take a peak and render a decision (I'm giving an opinion based on what I am reading of policy and tradition, not trying to proclaim the all knowing truth). That aside, the weineresque IP has been warned. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not trying to change the subject, BUT, note that some notables members have their own articles. See, for example, Les Paul and Mary Ford, then Les Paul, and Mary Ford. IMO, you are too generous! :) (and it's been a problem for me, too. I don't think I want to go to "Notables" to discuss it. Really an alum issue.) Student7 (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Do sources confirm that they were alumni? --Kudpung (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes ... the school has a wall of fame, and it confirms that this individual is an alum.

(indent) I'm not intentionally trying to be cnotrarian, because if consensus runs against my assertion, I am willing to go with consensus. However, consider Gladys Knight & the Pips. At least one of the Pips is not notable enough for this own article. However, I would argue that membership in this group (undisputed notability) is enough for inclusion in a list of notable alumni from a school. Like this Pendragon fellow, his name is a blue link that redirects to the group. I'm not in anyway saying this should be a slam dunk ... certainly notability is not inherited by association ... but there is something of a difference (IMO) between being a part of a group that is notable, vs. being the sin/daughter of someone notable, without notability in your own right. LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Another problem that this raises is the substitution, over the year, of additional nn to the group. There is probably a Famous Singing Group somewhere, in which all of the originals have been replaced. So there would be no notability IMO of belonging to the group without a separate article. Student7 (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a good point ... now that I think about it more ... does the 3rd violinst for the Chicago Symphony Orchestra default to notability by virtue of membership? I would say definitively no, and I think that there is consensus to that.

Despite this, I still am having a more dificult than usual time saying one half of a notable group is not notable. Honest to goodness I am not trying to be difficult ... there's a little voice in my head that keeps saying "its OK, keep it". LonelyBeacon (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Two more points along the same line (which is notability). I had a relative play an instrument beautifully and flawlessly. I thought he had a career or at least an avocation. His mother, more flinty-eyed announced that he would never make it - he had trouble with "theory." Which is the production of listenable music.

Second. Take Herb Albert and the Tijuana Brass. He had great players, but none of them contributed to the production. They were hired and fired "at will." Just ordinary (fine) players. Not notable, at least while playing in his band. (And okay, they didn't make them into an article either!). Student7 (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

New sub project idea

I have an idea for a new sub project idea, to see peoples views on the idea. "WikiProject UK Education" to focus more on education in the UK and focus on articles that current don't come under WikiProject Schools or WikiProject Universities such as Pupil Referral Unit, National Curriculum (England, Wales and Northern Ireland), School governor, Education Act 2002 and many more which are all related to the same topic but are all part of different projects or not part of an project, and as the other WikiProjects cover the whole world and not the UK, also there needs to be an effort to create articles which currently don't exist relating to UK education such as Governor Wales, List of primary schools in Bristol, Cabot Learning Federation, St Bernadette's Catholic Secondary School and hundreds more. Mark999 16:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It is something I have thought of in the past, though I have never pursued it on wiki. There is plenty of precedent for it, for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in Australia and Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in Canada. May I suggest the title of the WikiProject be Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in the United Kingdom, inline with these other projects. My only possible concern is if such a project will remain active, though the UK has a higher population than both Australia and Canada, and should be able to maintain its own education WikiProject. CT Cooper · talk 22:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

All change in April

A large number of English schools have converted to academies on 1st April. Other than the obvious need to update articles to reflect this (and possible name changes to the school itself) there are a couple of other changes we need to be aware of. The school's DfE URN changes when it becomes an academy. The easiest way to know this is has happened is to click through to the school's EduBase page and see if status shows "Closed". If it does then click the "Links" tab on Edubase and you get the link to the new academy and its new URN. You will need to change this in the infobox, but an unfortunate consequence is that the Ofsted link breaks in the {{Infobox UK school}} because Ofsted's pages will still be using the old URN. I guess we need to tweak the infobox template so that the EduBase link and Ofsted link can work with different URN. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 23:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Their Ofsted pages under the old URN will also disappear (as has happened for the schools that have already converted), and they'll have no Ofsted page until their first inspection under their new identity. So when we update a school's URN we also need to clear |ofsted= until that inspection. Kanguole 23:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 00:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Foreign language articles about US and Canadian school districts

For those of you that edit EN, you may also want to edit articles about US and Canadian school districts in foreign language Wikipedias, particularly for the benefit of non-English speaking parents in the US and Canada.

Across the US, Spanish is the universally important second language. Across most of Canada, French is the second language (though there are French school districts in some Anglophone territories, and Quebec French is the primary language).

For other languages important to US school districts, depending on the region, they are:

Amharic (Amharic articles have been created)
Arabic (Arabic articles are being created)
Bengali (The Bengali article - on Detroit's school system, hasn't yet been created)
Bosnian (Bosnian articles are being created)
Cambodian (Cambodian articles are being created)
Chinese (Chinese articles are being created)
French (French articles have been created)
German (The German article - on Mobile County, AL's school system, hasn't yet been created)
Hindi (articles haven't been created yet)
Hmong (Hmong doesn't have a Wikipedia yet)
Japanese (The Japanese article - on Torrance, CA's school system, hasn't yet been created)
Kabuverdianu (Kabuverdianu doesn't have a Wikipedia yet)
Korean (articles haven't been created yet)
Lao (articles haven't been created yet)
Oromo (The Oromo article - on Seattle's school system, hasn't yet been created)
Persian (articles haven't been created yet)
Polish (The Polish article - on Chicago's school system, hasn't yet been created)
Portuguese (articles haven't been created yet)
Russian (articles haven't been created yet)
Somali (articles haven't been created yet)
Tagalog (articles haven't been created yet)
Tigrigna (The Tigrigna article - on Seattle's school system, hasn't yet been created)
Urdu (articles haven't been created yet)
Vietnamese (articles haven't been created yet)

If a particular language is spoken by a large number of people in a major city, then it's likely that it will be important to that city's school system(s)

For Canada, the languages listed Talk:Peel_District_School_Board#Other_languages at seem to be the extent of languages spoken in Canadian school districts WhisperToMe (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)