Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

AfD Campaign on schools

The AfD campaign against schools continues. Although we're not seeing the volume of nominations that we saw in the Xmas/New Year's period (with 151 nominations being made by a single user over a 3 week period, for example), there continues to be a streak of nominations with 4 being nominated on Jan. 31 and 5 being nominated on Feb. 1. Unfortunately, it's the same set of around 5 or 6 nominators and delete-voters for most of these discussions and they are applying a very strict (and, in my opinion, highly arbitrary) interpretation of the notability guidelines which is leading to a number of schools being nominated despite claims of notability, particularly in regards to primary schools and middle schools (for which there is no guideline stating that they are simply non-notable, despite the claims to the contrary made by some editors)

WP:ORG states:

When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.

...with emphasis added. The importance of schools in their effects on society (should) be beyond question (but, apparently, some people didn't have a fun time at school or something?). Where they are historical, this should be a reasonable claim for notability also.

Other nominators and delete voters seem to be using AfD as WP:CLEANUP and nominating any school (primary/middle/high) that seems to be written badly. There has been at least a few instances of badly written school regions and high schools being nominated for deletion despite obvious text pointing to their status.

I strongly recommend that project members keep a close eye on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Schools and make sure that their voices are heard. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 19:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have started the promised RfC here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Secondary schools should meet WP:GNG or are they exempt? Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC on Schools started

Although it is mentioned above but not in a prominent section i felt it necessary to start a proper section.

If you wish to take part in the RFC it is here.[1] Edinburgh Wanderer 22:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-admin closure of school AfD

This school article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Bede's Prep School has been redirected after a non-admin closure of a school AfD. There was no consensus for deletion. Should this decision not have been made by an admin? Dahliarose (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Possibly, non-admin closures are allowed but are governed by Wikipedia:Non-admin closure. I have to say, at face value the keep voters didn't have things on their side either numerically or in terms of arguments, with the claims of notability being a little vague. However, this might another case of a primary/middle school being swept away without proper review. If it is notable, re-creating the article with a re-write and more references may be the best remedy. As it stands, the re-direct isn't that helpful as St Bede's School, Hailsham only mentions the prep school in passing. If the article is not to be re-created, then there should be a section on the prep school in the senior school article. CT Cooper · talk 23:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Dahliarose, if I recall correctly, you already have an article in your userspace that you're trying to improve, right? I have one in mine. The workload that is being created is unreasonable.

A look over the voters shows that most were just +1ing someone above them. As I said in my vote, WP:ORG states that historicity should be considered. Besides one person who tried to equate the school with his house (wtf?), no one addressed why a 115 year old school is not historical. How much of a history does a school have to have before the letter of WP:ORG applies? Certain people are reading it so strictly that literally nothing can get past. I suggest this one go to deletion review. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 06:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

no one seems to have addressed how a 115 yo school IS historical either. And in fact most contribs said they felt tat age alone does not define historicity. But you disagree and don't accept their POV and fail to remember that they they expressed it.Fmph (talk) 07:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Could you please go troll somewhere else? Cheers. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that this was a candidate for a non-admin closure per WP:NACD. It should probably have been relisted. Due to the large number of school AfDs and the responses to that effort, as well as the comments at the AfD, it was clearly controversial, which is enough to rule out non-admin closure, I think. Also, the article makes sufficient claims to pass GNG without any waivers or references to the various workarounds (like Common Outcomes and failed guidelines). The "Notable Bedians", or whatever they were, had been deleted before the closure for lack of references, but Izzard, at least, was verifiable in 10 seconds from his own WP page or a two-term Google search; he did attend this school--he discusses it in the bio section of his website, with some interesting detail. If we AGF with regard to those who worked to improve this article, the same was probably true for the other alums. Neither the closer or the nominator merged any of the encyclopedic information to the other article. There was a good photo of an interesting old building, lots of detail in the infobox, and enough readily available background information available, after a very brief search, that it would probably be undue if it was all put into the article for the senior school. The schools have separate histories, and the history of the junior school is longer.

Should the closure and redirect be challenged at DRV, or should one of you working on the article simply revive it in an improved state? I already saved Blue Oak School from the Christmastime listings, and need to spend some more time on it before asking for an assessment. I'm not willing to try to do the same for hundreds of other elementary schools--that's what the nominators are depending on, I think. The way to fix this is to change GNG, so that it doesn't apply to things like villages, mountains, and schools that are clearly "encyclopedic", as gazeteer entries at least, whether there is a solid consensus that they are individually "notable" or not. It would also be good to add every single publicly-funded school and school district in the U.S. and UK and any other country with a good national database of school data, the way Rambot added Census data on all of the CDPs in the U.S. long ago.--Hjal (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as an aside, be aware that userspace drafts are no longer safe from the campaign either. It seems that what's happening is a search for the phrase "primary school" and rather indiscriminate nominating of articles that turn up. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be more like a witch hunt. A whole load of new people are turning up at AfD and voting to delete or redirect these articles without making any attempt to look for sources or improve the articles. Articles about historic schools that would previously have been kept are now being deleted without question simply because they are primary/elementary schools. The sheer scale of the nominations means that it's difficult to find the time to work on the articles. I hope to find the time to recreate some of the deleted articles on English schools. Thanks for the warning about user space. I will make sure I keep my own offline back-ups. Dahliarose (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"A whole load of new people are turning up at AfD ..."? - Doh! Thats the whole purpose of AfD. Its open to everyone, not just a select few with a particular POV. The sheer scale and number of nominations obviously reflects the wider communities frustrations at the number of non-notable articles being create in this sphere. Fmph (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! A very good point. There is a huge amount of crap that needs to be cleaned out and I'm happy to play my part in that. As for whether I'm one of the "load of new people", I have been editing school articles for a couple of years now. --Bob Re-born (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The sheer scale and number of nominations, being that most of them are coming from a very small set of users (in fact, the vast majority come from one user) do not reflect the "wider communities (sic) frusrtations". ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sic? At least I can spell 'frustration' !Fmph (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You're awesome. Seriously. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground, and this should not become a mudslinging contest. Anyone is welcome to participate at AfD, but anyone who participates should take the time to review the article at hand, and it is in the interests of the common good that reasonable efforts are made to find out if a topic is notable before action is taken. That is why there is a set procedure at WP:FAILN. I do have sympathy for the view that those that work hard to try and restore school articles are being overwhelmed by the shear number of nominations. However, the worst case scenario is that some of these articles will just have to go to the back of the queue for the moment; there is no deadline after all. There is already an article request list at WP:WPSCH/AR. CT Cooper · talk 13:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• I personally believe a DRV would be a waste of time, and as such I will oppose efforts to either start one or carry one out. I see absolutely no evidence that the AfD discussion could have been closed differently, or that the closing rationale is flawed Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that a DRV in the circumstances would not be helpful. CT Cooper · talk 17:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion, Purplebackpack, that all primary schools are "inherently non-notable" (your words) because of a non-existent consensus and your bloc-voting in favour of deletion means that, yeah, we would expect you to take that position. However, many of the project members here disagree with you. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 22:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I happen to think that primary schools are not "inherently non-notable", as although a lot of primary schools don't have the sources to pass WP:N, some do, and the entire point of AfD is to look at an article on a case-by-case basis. However, as I have alluded to previously, while it may be true that the deletion arguments were weak, what made them appear credible was that the keep arguments weren't that strong either, and the reality is primary school articles have to make a big punch these days to exist at all. There was reference to the school's age and a murder but nothing very specific. If I was arguing to keep an article I would always try and list some sources directly to get the point across. That method doesn't guarantee the end of robotic delete votes, but it will make some people think again, and may be helpful in a deletion review or when talking to the closing admin. CT Cooper · talk 22:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, Dan, you continually repeating things I said while berating them is horrendously inappropriate, and if you think it will get people to sympathize with you, you're very mistaken Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between all primary schools are non notable and what the consensus was they are not inherently notable. This means they must meet GNG the chances are most won't but as I've said repeatedly the nominator should be checking that before nominating it which is not happening in all cases but whats the percentage of cases where an error was made by the nom. Also if a school is clearly non notable and the outcome of the majority of these is to redirect what is wrong with being bold and redirecting and if contested take to AFD as I've said repeatedly these large numbers of AFDs in most cases are wasting peoples time. Edinburgh Wanderer 23:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

So I assume that since you think AfDs to be a waste of time, you'd also think DRVs of AfDs to be a waste of time? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Not all AFDS are waste of time what I'm saying is where a school is clearly non notable and the common outcome of that case is a redirect then why not be bold a lot of editors are and do just that. A lot of these AFDS in the noms rationale say should be redirected per common outcome as no one has contested where is the need for further discussion at that time. In the case of it being opposed then take to and AFD. A DRV is a good thing if there is a genuine feeling that there isn't valid reason for deletion and they wish to get that reviewed. I think what you are asking is do i think a DRV is necessary here and i would say no.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What you've said, Purplebackpack, is flat out wrong and a misrepresentation of the situation. You vote as part of a bloc on the basis of a view that precludes the possibility that a primary school could be notable. I have a problem with that, because it runs counter to policy and extant consensus. Now you can dress my criticism of your behaviour as personal attacks if you like, but faux sensitivity is tiresome. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 23:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Old Fooians have been nominated for renaming (again)

Categories:Obscure Old Fooians which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for discussion and renaming to 'Category:People educated at Foo School'. (e.g. Category:Old Decanians to Category:People educated at Dean Close School, Category:Old Dolphins to Category:People educated at Godolphin and Latymer School etc.)

You are invited to add your comments at Obscure Old Fooians on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Ephebi (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Edgeborough School

Does anyone have any thoughts on Edgeborough School? It had been tagged for a merge but was then redirected without the content being merged so I've now restored it. The school is quite an old building and was requisitioned by the army in WWII: [2]. Dahliarose (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty much sick of this. Either you don't understand what a WP:MERGE actually is, or this is yet another bad faith accusation against me. I DID merge all referenced and relevant content into the destination locality article. The army requistioned lots of buildings in WW2. That doesn't make them notable. This is getting ridiculous and is disruptive. Fmph (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

English prep schools are usually located in historic buildings. Such articles will require further investigation to see if they merit a standalone article. As you'll see from the discussion on the talk page the building was previously known as Frensham Place and there a lot of potential sources on Google Books. If you're concerned about the article then you should take it to AfD but it doesn't seem appropriate for a merge. Dahliarose (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I see an AfD has been opened and I agree that the school should be deleted. As for the building itself, you can find the odd reference to Frensham Place in Google Books. However, the building itself is not listed so I doubt it would merit an article in its own right. --Bob Re-born (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I've now done a lot of work on this article and it is turning out to be rather interesting. The school has a whole string of interesting and diverse notable alumni, and the building itself has a fascinating history. Further input at the AfD discussion would be welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edgeborough School The school AfDs are currently dominated by people who think that all primary/elementary/prep schools are non-notable so it would be helpful if people could focus on the content rather than the type of school. Dahliarose (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I have duly added my 2p worth there, to the effect that I think the article should be kept. I am getting rather sick of people whose only aim in life seems to be to delete things. -- Alarics (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Carlbrook School - some rather NPOV editing going on

Hi folks, I've twice removed content from Carlbrook School for having a rather slanted POV and a lack of reliable sources. Most recently with this edit. I'd appreciate people adding the article (and its talk page) to their watchlists, and assisting the editor adding the material to find better ways to source it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Alarics (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

what are some of the most notable special schools in the world?

and how is the state of their wikipedia articles? considering i asked about notable special schools at reference desk and got no proper answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.221.208 (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It depends how you define "notable special schools". The top-importance schools are listed are Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools#Top-importance school articles, with those listed varying from a poor state to a very good state. The assessment table on the right at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools gives stats on article importance against article quality, with numbers being clickable to list individual pages. CT Cooper · talk 16:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

any articles about special schools given top-importance ranking? notable in terms of their impact on the special education field, even the general education field and wider society, of course history and all also plays a role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.219.200 (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "special schools"? Do you mean special education as in the topic of the article I have linked? If you mean special as in unique, then a lot of top-importance schools have unique long histories and significant notable alumni. CT Cooper · talk 00:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

yes i mean schools that offer special education to blind, deaf, autistic, dyslexic, intellectually disabled, etc. students! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.74.179.57 (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There have been no schools specializing in special education that have got top-importance ratings as far as I'm aware, although I'm happy for someone to prove me wrong on that. Only a very small number of schools (usually about one per country) get top-importance ratings, so the sample is not likely to be representative of all types of schools. CT Cooper · talk 15:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The Doon School

Would it be possible for a somewhat experienced school-article writer to look this over and give me a rough idea for what would be needed to get it to GA? My previous GA was a video game, and this subject is....different. (For example, with video game articles the gameplay is usually full, albeit unsourced, and the reception is usually skimpy. What are the corresponding sections here?) I already know some of the surface stuff for Doon (i.e. it's kinda a fluff piece) but I don't quite know what a reviewer will look for in a school article. Any tips on organization, content, etc is greatly appreciated. Please reply at the talk page so the other two main editors can see. Thanks in advance! Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 22:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a GA reviewer, but I have assessed many school articles. I will try and look into it for you. CT Cooper · talk 00:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 00:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I have left some ideas on the talk page. Let me know if you want some further feedback. CT Cooper · talk 15:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Peer review

Hello everyone,

Would anyone be interested in reviewing the Doon School page here:- Wikipedia:Peer review/The Doon School/archive1. We are seriously working/improving/editing this article to make it a Good Article. It's the first potential good school article from India. Thanks! Merlaysamuel (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Test scores encyclopedic?

I was looking for random demographic info on Perry County schools, and happened upon this heaping pile: West Perry School District The same goes for all other Perry County school districts, and who knows how many more. How in the world is this encyclopedic, or even remotely acceptable, to have 6 freakin pages of test scores? Who the hell wants to scroll through all that? Thankfully, my alma mater has not been hit with the same ugly stick, but please, tell me this is not the way things should be done. Search4Lancer (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not the way things should be done. WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI already says lists should be kept to a minimum; perhaps stats should be mentioned there too. CT Cooper · talk 00:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Karachi Grammar School

The same editor who was responsible for the mass nomination of over 150 school articles for AfD within a matter of weeks is now seemingly mass tagging articles and then going back a few weeks later and removing any material that is uncited. If anyone has time perhaps they could take a look at the article on Karachi Grammar School. I can't now restore the material as I will be in violation of the 3R rule. Dahliarose (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

What Epeefleche did in the article was a good thing and it should be applauded. If the same material gets reinstated then I will happily delete it again. --Bob Re-born (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The material has now been restored, backed up by extensive references. 16:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

St. Stephen's School, Chandigarh

Hi! Can any experienced school editor see this page St. Stephen's School, Chandigarh? It has not one single Reference and written like shoddy puff piece. It needs serious attention (or, perhaps, deletion)!! Merlaysamuel (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I've seen worse, but I'm starting work on fixing it now. I've cut down the number of images and raised copyright concerns on some of those remaining. I've put bits of the text through Google to see if any copyright violations were present but I found nothing. For the moment I have assessed the article as low-importance, but it could be mid-importance. CT Cooper · talk 16:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

English schools in <LEA> templates

I noticed a converted effort recently to separate out academies from bog-standard comps in some of the English LEA school templates. There now seems to be a corrective swing back, with many being merged back together again. Can we agree some guidelines as to what should and should not be included as categories in these templates?Fmph (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I favour separation. Local authority maintained schools and academy schools are managed differently so they should be listed as such. --Bob Re-born (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

In what sense are they managed differently? Fmph (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion discussion of Carmel School Giridih

Just to let you know, Carmel School Giridih is currently being discussed for deletion here; some members of this WikiProject might like to express their views. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Pupils vs Students

Please see Wikipedia_talk:Schools#Pupils_vs_Students and contribute if you have an opinion. --Bob Re-born (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Notability revisited: proposal for taskforce: Taskforce to improve US Highschool articles

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Secondary schools should meet WP:GNG or are they exempt? for the full story.

Although the RfC about notability has not (yet) led to consensus, I my opinion we can boast progress. There is a loud and clear disagreement about what sources are suitable to prove notability. Especially the use of school websites and local newspapers is controversial. Further discussion is necessary.

Also it is now clear that any change can lead to major problems. If, and if, there comes a change in the notability rules, grandfathering seems a proper solution to ease the challenge. The risk of mass nominations and mass deletions is, in my personal opinion, an important factor in the resistance/reluctance against changes. So be it, but it should not stop the process.

In an attempt to continue making progress, I suggested a different approach: first start a taskforce to improve articles on secondary schools, and concurrently have the discussion about changes in the notability guidelines. The taskforce, nicknamed by me as "Taskforce Improve US Highschool Articles", can identify articles that might run into trouble with a change and can coordinate the effort to improve those articles. It can take months before an agreement on the guidelines is reached, time enough to improve a lot of articles and ease the effects...

Finally, I don't think I am the most suitable one to coordinate the taskforce. I stepped on a few toes here and there. The coordinator should be diplomatic enough to achieve agreement on the question what the desired level to reach is. And to get agreement on the question: how do we do that? Of course, it is just a proposal to name it "Taskforce Improve US Highschool Articles". Another scope or more then one taskforce is also possible.

So, anyone willing to take up a role as taskforce-coordinator? Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Surely it is clear by now that there is no consensus for what you are doing. Please, just drop it. -- Alarics (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Drop the stick and back away from the horse. --Bob Re-born (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I have no problem with your opposition. Sooner or later those Guidelines will be changed to bring them in line again with WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Many people are afraid that even the slightest raising of the threshold will cause mass nominations and a massacre. What I try with this taskforce is to prevent a massacre by anticipating of the inevitable change. It is a pity that you two prefer the massacre above the quality of the encyclopedia. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly if one reads between the lines concerns over a massacre are evident. However, that also runs in reverse, with some users being concerned that enshrining liberal guidelines will open the door to a flood of new articles. There are a lot of people which are yet to be convinced about what was proposed at WP:VPP, particularly in regards to local sourcing, and while I cannot speak for everyone, I opposed it because I think the claims that it is bringing schools in-line with the GNG are wrong, and that a blanket local sources ban is a bad policy for the encyclopedia, not just because of concerns over a "massacre" with school articles. Nothing is inevitable, and opinion could go in any direction in the future, though I hope that if a formal guideline specifically for schools is ever established, it will be well thought through, reflective of evidence, and actually have a good consensus. CT Cooper · talk 21:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Night, As elsewhere I have been bold and changed the heading in order to clarify what the topic of the conversation now is. I have followed the link given and it has taken me 95 minutes to read it, and only after 90mins did I find out what the task force was proposing to do. Several task forces were implied that could have had massive remits. The parameters are fairly limited- and restricted to US secondary schools (KS4 and KS5 in UK currency) and I agree that this is a good idea. But the heading here was far to open hence the change. This task force has merit but I can't really help as I keep my edits to the right of the pond save on rare occasions, I don't see that there is a very large pool of editors available to help. --ClemRutter (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The USA is also out of my comfort zone, but I am willing to lend a hand to prevent disasters. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

We are short of human resources on this project, though I am open minded towards focusing on a specific area, such as US highschools, to get the strongest output. CT Cooper · talk 21:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, working slowly is quick enough. Every article done, is a positive result. I was quite shocked when I started filling User:Night of the Big Wind/Schools with notability problems. The list of schools in Wyoming was much longer then expected. And I did my best to exclude as many as possible. But still I have 22 schools on the list, most of them (20) not sourced at all or only sourced by their own website. The two other are written like an advertisement according to the tag (Woods Learning Center) or is a real confusing thing what looks like a fail disambiguation page (Cowley High School. Even if the threshold is raised to "being sourced with third party sources", they are unnecessary potential victims... Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

List of schools in Bangladesh

Hi folks, I found List of schools in Bangladesh while following a vandal around. It's a mess - broken tables, typos and goofs all over the place, incorrect column headings, and it's all completely unsourced. Do you think it can be rescued, maybe between you guys and WP:WikiProject Bangladesh? ~ Kimelea (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking through past versions of the page, older revisions look less broke than the current one, so maybe a revert would be a good start. The older revisions are still unsourced though unfortunately. CT Cooper · talk 21:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Was not that bad to do, most thrash is now gone. But some further tweaking is necessary. Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the cleanup! :) ~ Kimelea (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Graag gedaan1 You're welcome! Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Confusion about duplication of efforts and discussions

Can somebody please explain the difference between this page and Wikipedia talk:Schools? Both seem to have the same purpose. If they do, then can we do something to keep everything in one place e.g. by moving all existing discussions onto one page (whichever is most appropriate) and setting up the other page as a redirect? --Bob Re-born (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I meant to reply, but it slipped off the radar. The problem started when Wikipedia:Schools was created in its current form as a general project space disambiguation page, after old notability proposals were moved out of the way. Since this page is watched more and is older, I have often directed users here for general schools' issues. I would suggest putting a note on the top of Wikipedia talk:Schools restricting it to discussion on the Wikipedia:Schools page itself and directing everything else here. CT Cooper · talk 19:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Locally notable teachers

• Context
• Talk page discussion

In my mind, this is what WP:WTAF is for. I could really use a third (and fourth and fifth) opinion, though. tedder (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

While I would prefer that notable teachers/students have an article on them, I don't think the lack of one is automatically grounds to remove them from notable teachers/alumni lists, providing that clear evidence is available that they are notable. That said, "Outstanding teachers" is not an appropriate section title, in fact the entire article seems a little promotional and could do with some trimming. CT Cooper · talk 19:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

WTAF might be convenient for the project and the regular editors, but it's not policy and not a very good guideline. People do not need to be WP:Notable enough for a separate article in order to be named in another article or to be included in most lists. Many individuals could be suitable encyclopedic content for a high school or locality article, without being notable enough for their own article. Even if the meet GNG or other notability guidelines, it still might be better to include them in a larger subject, especially if we don't have much other information about their lives. Dr. Whirry and the other winners of National Teacher of the Year might be good stand-alone articles--there's only one named each year--but the entry here seems appropriate as well. Mr. Fauver is only one of 16 annual Teachers of the Year named by LA County. The details show a distinguished career, but don't seem to justify a separate article. He would fit into a list of other outstanding teachers, with fewer minor details. There are far too many teacher names elsewhere in the article. The band leaders and club advisors aren't encyclopedic and shouldn't be named unless they are worth describing for some reason--State Band Leader of the Year, say. In general, I would only list the principal/head and, perhaps, the assistant principals, based simply on their existance. Everybody else needs some reason, like many winning seasons or a major award or a well-covered scandal.--Hjal (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly section blanking non-encyclopedic testing statistics

Hello all, I had asked here before if insane amounts of state testing results were appropriate such as on West Perry School District, and was told no. Can't find it in the archives, unfortunately, but I had never gotten around to figuring out, with your guidance, what the best course of action to cut out all the garbage in all of these school district articles would be. I did find a few likely IP culprits, namely User:75.97.15.100 and User:70.44.160.82 which will help with identifying articles that need cleaned up. My first instinct is to just blank the "Academic Achievements" sections entirely. Several subsections are non-specific to the articles (college remediation, dual enrollment), and all of it requires an insane amount of work to keep the information current. In addition, all of the information involved could much easier just be linked to, as the bajillion references all point to two or three state department of education sites. I really want to get these cleaned up, please advise. Thanks! Search4Lancer (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the easiest and least controversial improvement would be to combine all of the statistics for the three elementary schools into one table. That would shorten the apparent length of the article without removing any information. The data provided does not look like "garbage" to me, and it doesn't look like maintaining the article will require much work, since most of the data is historic and will not change from one year to the next. Assuming the sources stay where they were, it will probably only require an hour or two per year for the creators of the article to update it with 2012 data when it is available.--Hjal (talk) 08:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

An hour or two per year per article, and I expect that it will be changing from one year to the next. The better question is, does all that really need to be on Wikipedia, or can it just be summarized and linked to. Search4Lancer (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi! please help me make my article "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Saint_Michael%27s_School_of_Padada" to make it more encyclopedic and for it to be finally accepted...--QuecyKeith 15:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Quecy: Here are some things to do:

• Go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Help and post your link and help questions there, rather than here (sorry, I misdirected you previously).

• Please see the guidelines at WP:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines.

• Please always sign your posts using four tildes, not by typing your name.

Although I am not a member of the Schools porject, I have given your article a copyedit based on Wikipedia principles. You need to keep ALL of the religious stuff out of the article.

You also need to indicate the grades and age ranges the school teaches. I believe that the school goes up through and including high school, which means it may be elligible for inclusion as a Wikipedia article. If it doesn't include high school, then according to the project guidelines it probably does not merit an article on Wikipedia.

Good luck ~ Softlavender (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Opinions on: External Link for Camberwell Grammar School's House Portal

Dear followers, I would appreciate more opinions on this issue (found here: C.G.S Talk - Clifford Portal) regarding the inclusion of the link to The Clifford Portal. There is a headlock in this extensive discussion as to whether to include this link, as there are no information on the School article's page about the vital Housing System. Background knowledge: The Official Clifford Portal provides history/info about houses at CGS. Leechyeah (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The third opinion came out against the link after reviewing policy, and I would probably have given a similar answer to what has already been given there. CT Cooper · talk 16:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Co-curricular Activities - non-school-affiliated student groups

Samonw27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been insisting on adding content to Normanhurst Boys' High School (and Hornsby Girls High School) on a student group that is not, actually, affiliated with the school. My perspective is that if a co-curricular activity has not school involvement, besides the involvement of students, then it's suitable for inclusion in the article.

If we do allow such activities to be included, then the question would be where does the line lie between what is included and what isn't. For example, would we then include bands with student members who occasionally use school facilities to practice (as is the case at many Australian schools)? What about dance/gymnastics groups that use school facilities to practice? Thoughts?

I've raised the issue on both talkpages and directed the editor there, without much utility. His last diff (that I haven't undone) is here. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem for me is not that it's 'unaffiliated' - whatever that means. The problem is that it is unreferenced. Fmph (talk) 11:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Unaffiliated as in unconnected. There's no administrative or otherwise connection between Connect and the (secular) school. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think if there are reliable secondary sources that mention about that group/activity along with some sort of relationship to the school (whether they are administratively connected or not) in a significant way or that being a unique feature not seen in most schools, then I don't see any issue including that information. Z22 (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

How would anyone know whether there was an admin or otherwise connection between a particular group and the school? I think it would be near impossible, to get independent references to corroborate such connections. There are lots of schools that have alumni groups - either financial, pastoral, sporting, etc - which may or may not have direct connections. Many will have no links whatsoever to the school, other than its membership being either present or past pupils of the school. They all are suitable for inclusion, IF they are referenced in independent, reliable sources. Its not the connection that is the defining criteria. Its the references. Fmph (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Getting independent references would be next to impossible, but WP:SELFPUB suggests that non-contentious information (i.e., that a school has a Debate Team) sourced from school websites or newsletters would be acceptable to show a relationship between the school and its co-curricular activities. The key, however, remains that those sources would have to show a direct relationship between the school and the activity.

For example, a high school close by to me recently published it's newsletter with information that a group of boys who attend the school had won some team boating competition, but the point was that the boys were independent of the school because there was no administrative relationship between their sport and the school, even if they apparently used school phys. ed. facilities to train (I don't know how this works for boating, but...). I would argue against including that information in the relevant school's article too. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Well there are lots of instances on WP of such information being included in school articles. Stuff about school buildings long before the buildings were part of the school, stuff about alumni groups. If there is a reference, I see no reason to delete. Fmph (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

UK Secondary modern schools today

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Secondary modern school#Secondary modern schools today. -- Trevj (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Blue Ribbon schools program

Hi--Please forgive me for wholesale deletions; I wasn't aware there was a court, so to speak, to whom I could address concerns. I found the article on Blue Ribbon Schools extremely outdated and inaccurate in some places. Last year the US Department of Ed changed the name to National Blue Ribbon Schools program, to distinguish if from a for-profit company that had usurped the name. The self-nomination process ended in 2003. Furthermore, "centered around" is a logical impossibility. Mr. Bell is Terrell H., not Taco, Bell. I don't know what year the improving schools category (40% or great disadvantage student population) was initiated, but I felt it rendered the criticism about not the award's not taking into account disadvantaged students. Test scores must show a closing achievement gap for low-income students, non-native English speakers, and special education students (with some exceptions). The criticism that schools are not assessed by a third party is valid, although the requirement that students must score high on state or nationally normed assessments provides one level of assurance. It is not financially feasible to organize third-party evaluations of something like 417 schools; it may be a good idea, but the number of schools would have to be drastically reduced. Elizg (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Elizabeth Goldman, RMC Research Corporation, Portsmouth, NH. My company manages the National Blue Ribbon Schools Program in coordination with the U.S. Department of Education. May 9, 2012

First of all, thank you for fronting up on this. However, I have initially reverted your excisions. Large scale content removal should not take place without agreement either on the talk page or here is fine. Please await further content removal until we get the views of interested editors. Finally, please familiarise yourself with WP:COI. TerriersFan (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Total disgrace...

It is a total disgrace to Wikipedsia that articles like Colegio La Fe are kept in this state. It is a total mockery of WP:V that people claim that lack of sources is not a reason for deletion but for improvement but that the same people don't do a thing to improve the article. Guys, do you take the guidelines and policies seriously?

Could we agree on it that an article about a school should have at least one independent source (not the school website or from the local authority governing the school)? And that the article should make a slight attempt to prove its notability instead of just telling it is there? Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I was expecting something worse given the rant; the source given seems to go to a newspaper and the only WP:V issue with the current content is the lack of sourcing for the founder and the date given. That said, I agree some action needs to be taken on the WP:N front. However, the AfD was closed just this morning and any complaints about it should be taken-up with the closer or the participants. CT Cooper · talk 12:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

No, we couldn't. The fact it exists is enough for an article. This has been discussed many times before. Let's not start the endless debate again. We know you don't agree, NotBW, but you do seem to be in a minority. What is wrong with the article? It's a stub. Stubs are acceptable. It is sourced. Why is it a "total disgrace"? This is nothing more than another step in your campaign to single-handedly change consensus. It hasn't worked before and it won't work now. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL, I expected that. It would mean the you guys have to start acting to improve the articles. But "the people" (= a small bunch of hard shouting, mainly American, editors) seem to prefer dodgy and unreliable above quality and reliability. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I am irritated by the general presumption that secondary schools are notable and that primary schools are not. Of course, far more secondary schools can meet the WP:N test than schools for younger children, and the merging of non-notable schools to other articles is correct, but in both cases some can meet the test and some can't. Surely, objective criteria need to be applied equally to all schools? Moonraker (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, and so its not too surprising that a large proportion of editors are American. In any case, using editors' nationality as a tool to malign them is a clear violation of WP:NPA policy, and I don't find such crude humour funny. Complaints about WP:N e.t.c. might be taken more seriously if those making the complaints could themselves follow policy. As for improving articles, well this project does a lot of that, and could do more if less time had to be spent dealing with drama created here and elsewhere. CT Cooper · talk 11:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

After returning to Wikipedia after a 3-month break,especially from debates on notability for schools, I see with regret that Night of the Big Wind has still not given up on his campaign to establish his own set of rules for notability of schools - ostensibly towards deleting them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit dispute on high school page, re: alumni

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines.

I have semi-protected I. E. Weldon Secondary School, after a series of edits removing Eric Clinton Newman (now Luka Magnotta, suspect in a foreign university student's dismemberment) from the alumni list. After I posted regarding the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Alumni, only one anon has edited, but there was painfully repeatitive editing in the last week or two. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but generally editing disputes don't revolve around the guideline, so it should be posted at WT:WPSCH, not here. tedder (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, can people more experienced in school articles confirm that this list is appropriate? -- Zanimum (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. The source checks out and he is clearly notable. CT Cooper · talk 05:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input! Is the semi-protect appropriate for this situation? Or, in your opinion, should I unprotect and simply keep it on my watchlist? -- Zanimum (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a bit overkill to immediately make it semi-protected. I would have expected that you brought the issue into the talk page first before taking the less desirable action. I would say to add a new section in the talk page now and unprotect it. If someone just come and remove the entry, revert it and suggest to get consensus in the talk page before making any change regarding that topic. Then let's see. Z22 (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Several of us have all school pages on our watch lists and additionally, vandal fighters are very quick to rv unwanted edits. Unless school pages have a notorious history of disruption, especially by IPs, there is probably no reason to protect them. That said, I do protect a lot of school pages - for a short while at least. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks both for your input. I've unprotected the article. While the accused has been shipped back to Canada, to await trial, I'm hoping media attention and thus public attention is easing off a bit.

As for taking the issue to the talk page, I would have, had their been more grey in the issue. My I E Weldon talk page postings were more statement-like than "less discuss this", mainly because of the policy being seemingly clear, and (while I don't use edit summaries as much as I should in non-controversial editing) the editor and anons involved didn't seem to want to even post a few letters in the edit summary, to explain their reasoning. -- Zanimum (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

American Indian Model Schools - Separate articles on individual schools

Hello! I would like to discuss an issue regarding American Indian Model Schools, a US charter school system.

A user argues that each school in the American Indian system should have its own Wikipedia article in addition to the system article. He created American Indian Public High School and restored American Indian Public Charter School (which I had merged into "American Indian Model Schools")

I argue that " All of the relevant information on all three schools is in this article. Any individual school article will merely duplicate the info. The administration and school culture is no different among any of the schools. The schools have insufficient differentiation. Think about public high schools in a large school district, which have different histories, cultures, practices, and relationships." and posted this on his talk page.

What do you think? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well it may depend on the school - there is a lot more content in American Indian Model Schools than in American Indian Public High School for instance. In any case, if there is to be one merged article - there should be a dedicated paragraph or two summarising the basics on each school, which is also where the re-directs should point directly to. CT Cooper · talk 09:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

One article is on a high school. Those are generally considered notable, but you're welcome to take the article to a deletion discussion if you think this case is different and deserves a different outcome. The American Indian Public Charter School is one of the most studied and controversial charter schools in the country. Also, a charter school system has grown out of it. It is definitely notable, exceptionally so, even though it is a middle school. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Deputy heads

In the Schools' guidelines "Infobox contents" advice it states that Deputy heads/principals, Deputy chairpersons and Temporary positions should not be included in the infobox. Under "Other sections"-"Notable teachers/faculty" it states that teachers should only be included if they are notable in their own right - this sub head makes no mention of Deputy heads/principals etc. Am I right in assuming that Deputy heads/principals etc fall under the same guideline as teachers here, and should not be included in the body text unless there is proof of their special notability ? Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not including them makes sense to me. A vice-chairman is rarely more than a member who occasionally deputizes for the chairman; in most schools, a head's deputy is hardly more significant than a head of department, and sometimes less so. We have to strike a balance between information and conciseness. Moonraker (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The long-standing precedent as far as I'm aware is that only the headteacher/principal gets an automatic mention in the infobox or anywhere else in the article. All other staff have to be notable, which would extend to deputies/assistant heads e.t.c. CT Cooper · talk 14:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

GA nomination

Hi friends! It has been several years since I've been around these parts, but I've spent the past few days significantly improving a former GA-class article, the Preuss School. I've now renominated it for GA and would love it if you any of you could take a look, given the backlog there. I also think there the article could get to FA-status with a bit of work, so if any of you could look at with that goal in mind and offer feedback on the talk page, I'd appreciate it. Cheers for all that you do! SorryGuy  Talk  20:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I have left some comments on the article talk page. CT Cooper · talk 14:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Reason why the below RfC is here

Hi Wikiproject Schools. I know that the topic below is something most of you aren’t aware of, but I needed a centralized place to run an RfC that covers five different articles on schools in Sri Lanka, and this project is more active than WP:WikiProject Sri Lanka (and putting it on any of the individual articles might itself be biasing). I’d invite your comments if you’re interested, as well of those of any uninvolved individuals. In addition, if there’s any admins watching this, it may be helpful to semi-protect all of the articles while the RfC is going on to stop the constant edit warring by IP hopping and proxy using editors. I just want to add one note on that regard though—while the IP user(s) have been blocked numerous times for editing without discussion and personal attacks, I’m not actually certain that said editor(s) aren’t actually ‘’right’’ regarding the underlying naming issue, so this really isn’t just a behavioral problem.

I'll be placing a notice at each of the article talk pages directing people here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Naming issue for public schools in Sri Lanka

The names of a variety of public schools in Sri Lanka (mostly called “colleges”) have been undergoing a very long term, very irritating edit war. A variety of different options have been proposed, but there are a lot of difficulties related to a lack of English sources, a lack of consistency in sources that we do have access to, and people’s opinions about the appropriateness of the term “Royal”. Following are all of the articles in question:

• Royal College Colombo
• Rajakeeya Maha Vidyalaya, Telijjawila
• Royal College Panadura
• Polonnaruwa Rajakeeya Madya Maha Vidyalaya
• Ranabima Royal College (though there hasn’t been any edit warring on this one).

Looking at this list, you can already see one problem—three of them use English translations of the Sinhalese names, while 2 remain in Sinhalese. This isn’t necessarily wrong, but it is awkward. But there are other problems. For instance, should the first one be called simply “Royal College” or “Royal College Colombo” or “Royal College, Colombo”. Regarding the importance of the comma, the question is whether “Colombo” is actually a part of the name, or if it’s simply a descriptor that defines which of the Royal Colleges is being discussed. And this, ultimately, is where a lot of the angst surrounding the articles is coming from—apparently there is some disagreement about whether or not the term “Royal College” is officially acceptable (i.e., if there has been a “royal grant” of title). Of course, the related problem for Wikipedia is that we don’t concern ourselves with only the “official” title, but also the common name.

It’s time that this issue got sorted out for all of the articles. The edit warring has been going on for a long time, often accompanied by personal attacks and the use of Tor proxies. I personally have not formed an opinion about the appropriate titles (though I have opined on some of the talk pages to reject certain forms of evidence and argumentation that are not compatible with our policies). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, pls note that the first on the list is not an English translations of the Sinhalese name. Royal College Colombo is the original form of the schools name that was in use since 1881. The Sinhalese name of the school is in fact a translation of its English name. Others I do have to agree with you as they are either English translations of the Sinhalese names or Sinhalese names. Furthermore since this RfC edit waring has spread to the fifth on the list.Cossde (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment

As per WP:PRECISION article names should have Natural disambiguation before any forms of parenthetical or comma-separated disambiguation. In these articles use of both parenthetical and comma-separated disambiguation would cause a great deal of ambiguity.

For example if we were to follow comma-separated disambiguation and use the following naming standard as (requested two users in the past);

• Royal College, Colombo
• Royal College, Panadura
• Royal College, Telijjawila
• Royal College, Polonnaruwa
• Royal College, Gannoruwa

This would cause ambiguity about the administration of the schools and their connection to each other since the traditional rival of Royal College Colombo, S. Thomas' College, Mount Lavinia is part of an network branches throwout the country, all administrated by the Anglican Church of Ceylon;

• S. Thomas' College, Mount Lavinia
• St. Thomas' College, Guruthalawa
• S. Thomas' College, Bandarawela
• S. Thomas' Preparatory School

Therefore, the use of comma-separated disambiguation would only lead to more ambiguity in a Sri Lankan context and would not be much helpful in an encyclopedic article. On a PoV note, I believe that this is the objective of the parties engaged in IP based editing of the sites.

Due to this I strongly believe Natural disambiguation should be used. For this matter I believe using the original form of the school names as there ample evidence of their use in print media of the country or the use of their exact English translations in the case of those with Sinhalese names;

• Royal College Colombo (original name is in English)
• Rajakeeya Maha Vidyalaya, Telijjawila (English: Telijjawila Royal Central College)
• Panadura Rajakeeya Vidyalaya (English: Panadura Royal College)
• Polonnaruwa Rajakeeya Madya Maha Vidyalaya (English: Polonnaruwa Royal Central College)
• Ranabima Rajakeeya Vidyalaya (English: Ranabima Royal College)

This would be the best form of disambiguation we could provide for these articles. Cossde (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

School Captains in Template:Infobox school

G'day All. The school infobox currently has a spot for mention of school captains... WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI discourages mention of nonnotable student names and I agree with that point, that students should not be mentioned (for reasons of (a) avoiding vandalism targeting students; (b)avoiding identifying underage individuals and the place that they attend for 6 hours a day (i.e., non-public information); and (c) just generally avoiding mention of nonnotables). Does anyone have any thoughts, or can I go ahead and remove that bit? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Go for it, I agree names should only be mentioned if they meet WP:N and it is highly unlikely that a School Captain would, if they do they can always be mentioned somewhere else in the article. Thanks Glanis^Talk 07:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - agreed, this would attract the addition of names that don't meet our notability criteria and could easily cause BLP problems. Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - very strongly to avoid vanity mentions as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. There's no need to mention current pupils' names in school articles unless they're significant outside the school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Template:Infobox UK school has no such fields for the reasons given above. Kanguole 09:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Kanguole, so none of the others should have it, and precisely because of the reason not to publish the names of nn students. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah! Well as it turns out, it's fully protected. Will wait until one of the admins sees this. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd do it but I'm not so hot on templates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would delete the section, but to be honest I can't spot it! There doesn't seem to be any space on the template for a school captain. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No, there isn't. I guess this comes from Northcote High School, where someone was using a non-existent field (as can be verified from the version before it was removed). So no need to do anything else. Kanguole 12:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry guys. Total misread on my part. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 12:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to remove it as well, but I couldn't fine it either. This was just a case of someone making-up fields. On the issue in general, I agree completely that school captains should not be included. CT Cooper · talk 19:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Westview High School (San Diego)

(Moved from WT:SCHOOLS) I have been working on this article for a while and recently it has become well known as the school the Aurora shooter, James Holmes, graduated from. Thus a "Notable Alumni" section was added and Holmes the only person listed. Many at the school complained, saying the school should not have a reputation of breeding murderers, and added fake and/or non-notable people to this section. What can be done about this? — PCB 06:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm watching it now, but I don't see the complaints on the talk page. tedder (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There are complaints in the edit history. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:NLIST, as long as they are considered notable, they should stay - best judged on if the article on them survive. CT Cooper · talk 21:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Merging Middle Schools Question

I attempted my first merge this week from Bailey Junior High to Arlington Independent School District#Schools. I followed WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#N and WP:Merge, but I still have a question. The page merged from had the {{WikiProject Schools}} template in the talk page. Since the redirect is complete, should I delete that template? The Jacobin (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There isn't a universally followed practice. Hiding the projects (as done now) is fine and can be left as it is - alternatively the entire talk page can be re-directed (not appropriate if there is extensive discussion), or the project templates can be left but with class marked as NA. CT Cooper · talk 21:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Stuyvesant High School

Stuyvesant High School has several faults that I feel compromise its FA status. Please see the discussion here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Lists of high schools - create with redlinks?

I am working on adding schools to List of high schools in New York from the NCES CCD data. For schools that have no apparent existing article, is it preferred that the listing be made with a redlink (such as Allegany County) or no link at all (such as Erie County)? Since High School articles are considered generally notable automatically, redlinks migh make sense. However, there is some guidance that lists should not be used to make listings of articles that should be created. What are the opinions here?--Arg342 (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Whilst it is generally accepted that nearly all high schools are notable, I would create the article without red-links as based on Wikipedia policy at WP:PURPLIST if it were a list consisting of mostly red-links it should be in the user or project namespace. I think however if there are any particularly notable schools (i.e. schools that are notable for a reason other than being a school) then I think they should be added to the list as hopefully it might encourage someone to start an article about the school. Just my thoughts, thanks Glanis^Talk 09:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Concurring with Glanis, I would create the list, but without redlinks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Whereas I would include redlinks to allow instant linking if articles are created and to monitor what articles need creating. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

After two weeks, it seems to be a narrow consensus for no redlinks. I have started to re-format the article based on that (See Albany County section). I am Wikilinking the cities, and for non-existent articles, no Wikilink, but two references where possible to help future editors: one for the NCES entry and one for the subject's home page. Thanks for any and all feedback! --Arg342 (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

American Indian Model Schools and duplicate articles

I would like to respond to the argument posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools/Archive_22#American_Indian_Model_Schools_-_Separate_articles_on_individual_schools by Candelabra

The problem is.. the American Indian system (Ben Chavis controversies, etc.) is notable BUT there is nothing unique about any of the schools that warrants a separate article. The same issues (demographics, curicculim, history) apply to all three equally. Look carefully at an article about a big city US/Canadian school district or suburban school district (Houston Independent School District) and a major high school (Wheatley High School (Houston) versus Bellaire High School (Texas)) - The schools have unique histories, unique demographics, unique course offerings, etc. The information about the individual AIMS schools does NOT warrant separate articles from the system. AFAIK usually rural school districts only have one article, as the info on the individual schools can be safely there.

You say that the AIMS system "grew out of" the charter school - but the AIMS administration was the same one that governed the school when it was the only AIMS school, so in reality the school "grew out of" the AIMS administration. The administration is the primary consideration, and each individual school is secondary.

Also AFAIK it is NOT eligible for AFD, as the problem essentially is, content-wise, American Indian Public Charter School is almost entirely a duplicate article of American Indian Model Schools - I wonder if using RFC would be the best venue WhisperToMe (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Stuyvesant High School for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking for advice on Maranatha High School

I noticed that the entry for Maranatha High School is currently missing a section regarding notable alumni. I've gone ahead and created a draft of what this section could look like, which you will find in my sandbox.

I'd do it myself but I'm a new editor here and would like someone else to review the content in my sandbox @ User:Tylercwhite86/sandbox and provide feedback. Is that something someone here could assist with? --Tylercwhite86 (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably, what is in your sandbox could be considerably shortened if it's going to become the Notable alumni section of an existing school article. Ideally the alumni section should just be a bulleted list, and there's no need to list "Class of 1977" etc. So the alumnus about whom there already exists a Wikipedia article would just need his name, wikilinked to that article, and the other would just need his name and the reference you have. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks OK to me but I would change 'There are a few notable graduates that have graduated from Maranatha High School.' 'Notable graduates include...' . Why be negative about it? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

For profit secondary schools

It is my feeling that for profit secondary schools (and possibly colleges and or trade schools) should be specifically excluded from WikiProject Schools (at least as it applies in the US) for the following reasons:

• They operate on a business model that, obviously, prioritizes profit instead of the altruistic goal of education like the traditional public or non-profit private school, making them fundamentally businesses first and schools second.
• Operationally, they tend to be in leased locations and change those locations with some regularity, reducing the traditional "fixture on the landscape" characteristic of more traditional schools, which stay in one location for decades or even centuries.
• Public and traditional non-profit private schools are defining institutions in their communities.

The reason I want to see this is the "notability exemption" (my phrase) for US secondary schools. For profit businesses that sell educational services are simply not the same animal as traditional public and private schools. Since secondary schools receive the same "pass" on WP:GNG that settlements and highways get (notability=proof of existence, not proof of significance), Wikipedia is putting itself in the position of being free advertising for these for-profit schools, since it could be argued that they are secondary schools and hence exempt from GNG. I recently started an AfD on a for-profit school with the argument that it was more a business than a school (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Challenger School‎), but that just made me realize more needed to be done.

I have never edited in "WP" space, and am not sure whether I am in the right place or doing this right, so if someone more experienced than myself would rather move this somewhere else (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines?), feel free.

My proposal would be to insert specific language in the appropriate place specifically limiting the term "school" to mean "public or non-profit school". Can we have a dialouge on this? Thanks! Gtwfan52 (talk) 08:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the right place, and it's a well intended suggestion, but it would probably never happen. Plenty of very notable schools are run 'for-profit' and this does not necessarily lower their contribution to education. Provided their articles are not promotional and notability has been asserted according to our criteria, the pages are kept. We obviously closely examine non notable businesses such as high street cram schools and 'for-profit' educational agencies and they usually end up being deleted, but we are able to deal with them on a case-by-case basis without needing to change the wording of the guidelines. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The Doon School review

Dear all, it's been months now since i first began editing this article. I wanted to bring it to GA level. I will be grateful if anyone can point out the major flaws or areas where the article still needs work. I look forward to your opinions. Thank you. --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  10:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Listing public school administrators

I'm struck by the long list of low-level school administrators often named in individual school articles, such as at Revere High School (Massachusetts), which not only lists the principal, but four vice-principals and an assistant principal. None of these individuals are notable, so it would seem to me that listing their names is at best an informational dead end. I'd imagine the lower positions change relatively frequently as well. These certainly aren't high profile public employees, much less so than a school district superintendent (most of whom also are not notable). What is the encyclopedic value of listing these names? postdlf (talk) 17:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

None. The usual approach is to list the principal or headmaster only, unless any of the others are notable in their own right. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Should we make a change to Template:Infobox school to discourage this in the future? postdlf (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Having the names of the most senior school officials makes searches in news archives more productive. A huge majority of the old hits for "Foo High School" are going to be sports scores, auto accidents, and non-encyclopedic information about recent graduates. Stories with the principal's name are much more likely to have encyclopedic information about the school. For old news stories and journal articles, that's also true of department heads and other senior officials, at least for some of the high schools I've looked at. Not so much for current news. So, I'd like a list of former and current vice-principals along with a list of principals. They don't really add much to the infobox. I think that the huge list of titles in the template drives this--maybe it would be better to have one field for editors to enter the title of the principal/head/whatever and a field for the person's name. There could be one or two more pairs of fields for positions that get a local consensus.--Hjal (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles shouldn't be built around how they could be referenced to old stories about a subject. Unless the past principal/vice principal or other administrator is notable, there is no reason to include them in the article once they are no longer employed by the school. The only reason I could think of would be in the school's history, perhaps mentioning the first principal or the principal who was leading at the time a major change happened at the school. But a long list of former administrators is not encyclopedic plus it goes against what Wikipedia is not, specifically not a directory, newspaper, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Knowing who a the school's former administrators are takes up space and does nothing to help the reader understand the topic any better since virtually all the names are meaningless to anyone who isn't closely connected to the article. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, there's a couple different discussions going on here. It started off, it seems, with more of a discussion of the infobox listing of administrators. I, too, feel that it is not perhaps necessary to list the vice-principals (and definitely no one under that level), etc. But I have added those to the infobox of some schools as well. Since the Infobox School template has a field for principal, viceprincipal and asst principal/assistant_principals, I'm sure many editors feel that it should be included. If there is consensus against having those fields, it probably should be discussed on that talk page as well. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

For the other issue of having lists of former school principals/headmasters in the articles: It is allowed under our article guidelines, WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#OS. Evidently, it was deemed allowable and maybe even appropriate to include in school articles. Are we wanting to revise this? How big an issue is it, really, to list former principals/headmasters? They may not have any notability themselves, I agree. Other lower admins definitely don't belong or need to be listed in article. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Since the Infobox School template has a field for principal, viceprincipal and asst principal/assistant_principals, I'm sure many editors feel that it should be included." Well, whether there is an actual rationale for doing so is what I posted here to find out; mere numbers don't matter. A template talk page is a rather obscure forum for discussing what content many articles should include, but feel free to post a link there to this thread. postdlf (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Independence High School (Thompson's Station, Tennessee)

A student from Mercer University with a COI (edit summary says "Citations and sources for the team I competed on for four years and continue to be heavily involved with") is continuing to add names to Independence High School (Thompson's Station, Tennessee)#Debate and editing the debate section at Mercer University. I've reverted a couple of times but would like other comments - am I wrong, should it be left? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Schools categorization

For some time, I have been at work categorizing all US schools in the following 6 basic categories for each state: private high schools, public high schools, private middle schools, public middle schools, private elementary schools, public elementary schools. I had finished 49 states and then worked on New Jersey (I left some of the large states for last). Another editor who works on New Jersey schools will not tolerate my categories for New Jersey. He is categorizing public and private, high and middle and elementary schools down to the county level---and insists on deleting schools from my 6 categories. I don't mind his categorization in parallel to mine (others might question it), but for uniformity I believe all 50 states should have the 6 basic state level categories I just mentioned. What are your thoughts? Thanks Hmains (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The categorization by county appears to be diffusing subcategories (see WP:DIFFUSE). Thus, the general rule should be followed: an article should not be in a parent category and a subcategory. Thus, the schools should only be in the category for "Public schools in XYZ County, NJ" and not in the "Public schools in NJ" parent category. —C.Fred (talk) 03:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with C.Fred. Ideally the subcategorization by county should be followed nationwide and in an ideal world would have been accomplished at the same time that the split between public and private high schools was being performed. I'm more than willing to help with editors from any other state looking to refine the categorization that Hmains has already done. Alansohn (talk) 03:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

C.Fred and Alansohn are correct. The categories have been diffused. Unless Hmains can make a sucessful Categories for Deletion argument, it is improper to categorize something in both a child and parent category. Hmains should undo all of the (re-)additions of this cat to these pages. Uniformity is not, nor has it ever been, any sort of rule that allows exceptions to explicitly defined rules on WP. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Concord academy

Something hinky appears to be going on at Concord Academy. Recent edits changed a photo from 250 to 750px, said that the school color is "rainbow", and listed the religious affiliation as Atheist. I made some changes per the school's web site, but at least one was undone by an anonymous user and other dubious information was added. I suspect someone, perhaps students at Concord or a rival school, is vandalizing the page, but I don't have the time or expertise to get to the bottom of things. Semi-protection may be warranted. Cnilep (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute about the need for citations of alumni on List of Old Gregorians

There is a dispute about the need for citations of the alumni at List of Old Gregorians taking place at Talk:List of Old Gregorians. I would be grateful if others would contribute their thoughts.— Rod ^talk 08:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I've commented there, but to people in general here: WP:NLIST is your friend--it's the easiest way to bring alumni lists under control. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Selectivity of private schools

I have an IP who wants to edit-war over exactly how selective St. Andrew's School (Delaware) is. He is claiming that there are distinct classes of selectivity (see this diff). I am dubious about this: first off, Boarding School Review's selectivity rankings don't break things out that way, to take one example, and second, while the rate last year was 26%, in 2010 it was 16%. Two data do not a trend make; obviously the rate is going to vary somewhat from year to year. The article in question has always tended to be peacocky but drawing a stark line across admission rates strikes me as illegitimate, especially given that (are you at all surprised?) there's no source given for the standard he insists on using. Mangoe (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

If "moderately selective" isn't defined anywhere, how about just going straight into stating the percentage without comment? Kanguole 14:04, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

We've had to deal with this in college and university articles, too. We seem to have had success in simply removing selectivity from the lead of most articles and only including it in the body if it's well-sourced. I think that most articles that include it use the selectivity descriptors from the U.S. News and World Report rankings so it's at least a well-known, consistent, and widely-used source even if it's not always the most respected. There is also a selectivity descriptor in the Carnegie Classification systems but I don't think it's widely used. I don't know if there is anything comparable for k-12 (and I assume there isn't given the heterogeneity and seize of the k-12 sector). ElKevbo (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

BSR which I referred to above doesn't apply adjectival labels; their categorization structure starts with <25% and then breaks out in 5% steps, with the other tail being >70% admitted. SAS, depending upon the year, is going to fall in one of the top two groups; in comparison to private boarding schools as a whole, it's clearly on the selective end of the scale. I haven't found any other private school directory that has selectivity data. There's also a geographical component in that the NE schools are more competitive simply because the pressure on them is higher. It sounds to me like going with the raw percentage may be the way to go. Mangoe (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Do departments at Universities have notability

Department of Computer Science and Engineering (University of Minnesota), new article which seems like it should be a blurbin the overall university article then a stand alone. checking to see if there is something that is a blanket policy to departments within the school having their own notability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You should probably take this over to WP:UNIVERSITY.. Where I think you'll find that it's already been agreed upon that they're not generally notable (see Wikipedia:UNIVERSITY#Faculties_and_academic_colleges). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 17:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Concurring with Danjel - university departments are generally not notable. A brief summary of each department can be contained in the main article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree also. What we need to do is to write articles about the few departments that are in fact very highly notable, and remove the others. It is not just universities--we normally interpret the notability requirements about subdivisions of notable organizations very strictly. In general, I think that a good practice. It makes for a more rtational organization of material, and decreases the opportunities for promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 19:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

There are enough notable university and college departments for a category, Category:University and college departments, which has its own subcategories.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A How-to question

How do you determine the geocoordinates that almost every article has? Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

For me it's a case of using Google Maps with the lat/long tooltip enabled, then trim the coords generated to 4 decimal places. --Bob Re-born (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes bit of a mystery- but easy to solve. I use Google Maps but I have a special bookmark to do the job. Look.

Preparing to Geotag files. On the bookmark tool bar, I have a bookmark called +, this contains javascript to extract WGS84 lat/log from a GoogleMap. The way it is done is to press Ctrl-D to open the bookmark dialogue. Change the name to +, change the location to Bookmarks/Toolbar.OK. Go to + on the Toolbar, Right click. Click Properties. Change the Location, paste in this code

javascript:void(prompt('',"{{coord|"%20+%20gApplication.getMap().getCenter().lat().toFixed(4)%20+%20"|"%20+%20gApplication.getMap().getCenter().lng().toFixed(4)%20+%20"|display=title|region:GB|format=dms}}"));

Now, to use open Google maps, find the spot, press the + bookmark tab. Ctrl+C, and then to the article and Ctrl-V.

Hope that helps. More help:User:ClemRutter/Toolbox --ClemRutter (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Can someone pass an eye over a new set of School Region pages that I have developed?

Not quite ready (numbers need to be updated, and a couple of other things)... But wondering what else I should do for:

• User:Danjel/Botany Bay Network
• User:Danjel/Georges River Network
• User:Danjel/Inner City Network
• User:Danjel/Inner West Network
• User:Danjel/Network 8
• User:Danjel/Port Hacking Network
• User:Danjel/Port Jackson Network
• User:Danjel/Woronora River Network

Being the divisions of the Sydney Region of NSW Public Schools.

...before I look towards moving them to mainspace.

My intention is/was to create articles that are much more relevant than localities as targets for redirects from, particularly, those primary schools which aren't notable. The example I frequently give of Greenwich Public School (which actually isn't in Sydney Region, but I digress), which redirects to a page with almost no information about the school whatsoever.

Finishing these off, then getting North Sydney Region started, will probably be my Summer holiday project.

In particular, because I work closely with Network 8 and Port Jackson, I'd like to know if anyone can see if I've crossed any lines. Cheers. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 06:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Good work. I've made a few simple changes, I'm happy to give them a full copy edit with a review of all the content as well. The variety of sources may not be enough for some although the notability of school districts and their equivalents is rarely challenged and sourcing as a whole is generally good. Also, the inclusion of external links in the table may be a little unorthodox, as external links are not generally allowed in the middle of Wikipedia articles, although I don't have a big problem with it in this case - except, having the school websites displayed as "www" maybe a little confusing. CT Cooper · talk 13:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Is sorting necessary for FLC?

Could anyone confirm if sorting tables are mandatory in a list for a successful Featured List nomination?. Though the criteria at FLC says 'sorting tables', it does not highlight it, much less makes it mandatory. I had List of The Doon School alumni in mind, to be specific, on which I'd worked rather hard introducing tables, but not sortable. I wasn't aware at the time and now I simply don't have the time or energy to do it all over again. The list has been in the pipeline for a Featured List candidacy for quite a while now. Can someone lend a helping hand or provide a solution? --Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  09:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussions at WT:ORG regarding notability of schools

G'day All. There is a discussion occuring at WT:ORG#Since_when_are_schools_exempt_from_notability_when_everything_is_saying_they_aren.27t.3F that I think is relevant to members of this project. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 08:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. As a general comment, this discussion doesn't seem to very different from the many that have preceded it and I suspect the outcome will be little different. CT Cooper · talk 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

NRA article: Responses to mass shootings

To the National Rifle Association article, I've added a new subsection under Political activity titled Responses to mass shootings. Source is a New York Times article. Members of this Wikiproject may find this of interest; it could certainly be expanded upon (and had been, surprisingly, absent from the article). Discussion at Talk:National Rifle Association is here. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure they will, as tragically schools and shootings have and probably will continue to mix. There hasn't been a discussion as far I'm aware on how far the scope of this project goes with school shootings, but from what I've seen current practice is to tag school massacre articles such as Columbine High School massacre and Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as part of the project, on top of specific articles on the schools if they exist, although we don't currently have any guidance on writing articles about school massacres or any standards in regards on how to set importance. In any case, this project does not cover related BLPs or organization articles, and university shootings fall under WP:UNI. CT Cooper · talk 19:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Mass creation of school stubs

I'm a bit concerned about the recent mass creation of extremely short school stubs. It's generally not difficult to create a fairly complete school article, especially for USA schools where ample information is available from the sources recommended on our WP:WPSCH/AG page and the school's own website from where, for example, the infobox can be almost completely populated, and the school district.

I would think it would be better to create these articles as fully as possible, one-by-one (which is what I do) instead of leaving the work up to us here who have no more additional expertise or resources than other established users. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If the school is to have a standalone article, then I'm afraid I don't understand your concern. Even a stub performs some informational function, and provides a starting framework for further developing the article. So let's not turn up our nose at volunteers not having done as much as you would have liked. If the school's not to have a standalone article, however, then (in the case of American public schools at least) just redirect it to the article on its parent school district. postdlf (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been creating at least some of these stubs I think, but it was under Kudpung's guidance. Have I been doing it wrong? I've been trying to create requested articles. I have been sure to add stub tags, cats, infoboxes, and talkpage banners. I am sure they would all survive an AfD. I have also been working on improving school articles that have already been made. I'm not interested in creating completed articles, just de-redlinking requested pages. If I'm not doing something correctly, let me know, the last thing I want to do is mess up existing programs or frustrate anyone. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

(A half developed idea). I have been musing about several school based issues following the spat with the deletionistas, I hadn 't posted anything because there were too many loose ends. But perhaps you would like to share the pieces and rearrange them into a coherent plan. UK side schools are about generating statistics and strategy documents, all of which are copy edited and web published. A quick Google on the schools name and you have all the source material you need. The problem is labour- who will put it together. Do we have a document that is equivalent to Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements. If we did, and it was sufficiently clear- writing a wikipedia article would be a valid educational experience for many aspirant students in one of those schools and would look good an a university application. If we had created the stub so were watching the article they would get valuable feedback on their prose- and we potentially pickup a new editor, who will then follow the WP obsession. UK side we only have on FA- we need editors.

Speaking with a quarter of a century experience working in these stats factories- there is plenty of talent, including budding linguists who could then work in other fields. The discipline and people skills learnt while co-operating on the development of an article are more valuable that the pathetic piece of paper that they will get when GCSEs are abolished. The reasons why a school may wish to cooperate needs to be clearly worked up so we can offer the reasoning to schools.

(fuzzy link). Schools must provide an email address- if when Sue posts a School Stub-- a member of the WP:Schools team send a stock email to the schools contact address- asking them to pass on a welcome-pack to a suitable member of staff that may be interested giving them details of how to to get suitable students involved- or inviting them personally to write a neutral article (as detailed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/How to write about schools)....

After it is set up it will become self perpetuating.

School stubs are fine- but even better if we have a clear development plan.--ClemRutter (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

+1 I really like this idea, I'd be happy to help out with writing educational programs or whatever that could be used by teachers to work with this. I can cover curricular requirements for Australia & NZ under such plans. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Friendly Comment - I am about as deletionist as you can get. One look at my AfD contributions and my userpage will show that. So when I say that my articles will survive an AfD, I hope that comes off with the force that I intend. I understand that the stubs need to be developed, but I cannot create such pages one by one. I can promise to create the articles in a condition that they are unlikely to be deleted, so that they are a solid foundation for later editors, but that is all I am willing to do. The bottom line is that there is too much work to do in this project for the number of people doing it, and it seems to me that a more complete field of solid stubs with (some) info, is better than a few very complete articles. I will defer to whatever the wikiproject wants to do, however, because I understand that you guys have your own ways of doing things and I don't want to interfere with that. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A how to write about structured document is a useful idea. I'm unconvinced that getting schools - which are increasingly competitive and into marketing - to write about themselves is anything other than a recipe for reliance on original research and first party sources. If you really want to largely ignore third party sources then it's the way to go - I mean, it's not as if there aren't plenty of examples of school articles full of unsourced pov pushing promotional stuff is there? Even avoiding the obvious COI issues you end up with a situation of ownership of articles. For me a serious problem, Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think ClemRutter is talking about encouraging the schools to encourage their pupils to write, not about encouraging the schools themselves (or the marketing/PR departments) to write. Having said that, the WMF has come under a fair amount of criticism for the effects of their encouraging undergraduate and graduate level students to edit Wikipedia, so there may need to be some caution around doing a similar thing with secondary level students. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Sue Rangell, do you think that the encyclopaedia should be massively reduced instead of expanded? Do you congratulate yourself on getting articles deleted (not rubbish, mind - we all congratulate ourselves on that - but good, solid, well-written and well-sourced articles) and write on other deletionists' talkpages congratulating them on doing the same thing? Do you create nothing, but strive simply to destroy others' work? Do you insult and mock those who put time into writing articles and claim that the most important contribution to Wikipedia is getting as many articles deleted as possible? Do you refer to anything you are not personally interested in as "cruft" and vote delete simply because you have not heard of a subject (which clearly means it can't possibly be notable)? Do you believe that the project cannot be taken seriously if it has anywhere near as many articles as it has now, let alone more? Then, trust me, you are certainly not as deletionist as you can get! And yes, I have seen all these attitudes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hahahahahahaha. Touche' I must admit that I am not as deletionist as one can get. :) Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would just like to clarify a couple of things before I get misunderstood. There is absolutely no question that we here at the schools project are deletionists; we follow the guidelines and well established precedents as conscientiously as possible. Some of the reasons why UK school articles appear to be well developed or GAs is because the two most active participants at this project are Brits and one of them is a teacher/lecturer with nearly 40 years in the trade. There are some major cultural differences in the focus of UK school articles and ones on USA schools: US schools articles place enormous emphasis on athletic performance - very often it's all they report, while UK school articles have most of their content dedicated to curricula and academic achievement. Nevertheless, in spite of the unusually long list of project members, there is really only a tiny handful of editors who have all school articles on their watchlists, and it's just too much for us to make full-blown articles out of all of them in spite of it being relatively easy to do. I've expanded literally 100s of school articles but there are other things I like to do too. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletionistas was a reference to #Discussions at WT:ORG regarding notability of schools no one on this page. Apologies.

A how to write about structured document is a useful idea- Thanks. If you want an example of disgraceful practice, look at the The King's School, Chester which I have blanked as a copyvio. I do see that having a good structured document is the key to solving that. School students are used to following guidelines and rules. It is partially there as Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines but fails in that it is not new editor friendly- and the same goes for the Assessment guidelines. They strike me as unloved; merely fulfilling of a Wikibureaucratic requirement.

I am sure that a lot of self promotion from with-in the state school sector is down to editors not understanding what is expected of a wikipedia article and then churning out the same sort of garbage that they are required to produce for Ofsted. I don't mind helping but I haven't written school article of substance so someone else needs to take the lead. (I inhabit the regions of Cotton Mills and 19th Century Manchester). Perhaps I see a structured document as a method of retaining control! It certainly could help colleagues stateside in their fight to weed out some of the more embarrassing sports club orientated schools articles. I can think of 13 year-olds in my street who would do an excellent job of detecting copyvios if they had a structured document at hand to refer to for confirmation.

Demiurge1000 is right to suggest that caution is required- which is why I prefer that a central team controls the process by establishing the correct way- rather than individual teachers doing it without support. Also that way we minimise Child Protection issues.

Further musing, it occurs to me that with standardised data available on Government databases- it should be possible to knock up a little bit of REGEX code to trawl and download all the stuff we need to generate a good stub semi-automatically.

Friendly greetings all round- and coffee and mince pies to anyone who cares to pop round. --ClemRutter (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I think inviting students to edit their own school's articles is a recipe for disaster. I hope none of us are so old as to not remember our mindset when in school. The whole world was, pretty much, the school. You are asking for namecruft and trivial information. If I come upon another school article that says "lunch comes between 3rd and 4th hours", I am going to puke. The guidelines say that individual students and faculty are not to be mentioned (excepting those who are independently notable). There will be a whole lot of that under this plan. School articles are to be written to inform the world. If you are asking people whose whole world is the school to write them, what do you think you will get? And I personally feel that making stubs is just fine. Someone will come along and flesh them out. It is not solely the responsibility of this project.Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd urge caution about using a script to generate stuff based on government data - so much of it is out of date for example... I'm currently sitting in the school building that closed last year and got taken over as a sixth form centre; it's still listed as a current middle school by the government (and the school which took it over is listed with it's old name and pupil numbers). School name changes in the UK - and switches to academies - would strike me as a major problem with using automated scripts.

As mentioned before, a structured document with a suggested set of sections etc... and an example article or two would be very useful - as much as anything to point at when people put up a load of promo stuff. I wonder if we'd need different ones for different school types and for schools in the UK compared to the US though?

And I'd love a mince pie... Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I have been lurking here in the background following this. First, I have developed a possible system for creating stubs for US public (government funded) high schools. It runs on my PC and is based on National Center for Education Statistics data which just provides very basic enrollment and staffing level data, but a decent start all the same IMHO. An example of the output of my system can be seen in the edit history of Cuba-Rushford High School. If there is any desire for something like this, I would be happy to take feedback, further develop it and to get approval for a bot account to create these stubs semi en masse. There was a comment that government data can be inaccurate and out of date, but even old data can provide a start for a stub.

Next, I very much support the idea of enrolling schools to have class projects to improve their own articles. The exemplar reference articles would be an important part of this, but as someone else mentioned, an overall friendly how to guide would be a very great help. It could be written as a bit of Wikipedia 101, include a summary of all the pitfalls such as NPOV, and aimed at young authors (17 to 18 year olds). One of the advantages of local authors is that they have access to printed copies of their local newspapers via their local library. Often old newspapers are not available on the Internet for non-locals to research easily. Once this guide is developed, a mass-e-mail could be generated to school principals and/or district superintendents suggesting this as a project for their schools, but emphasizing that this is a serious academic exercise. I think English teachers might very much like this as a practical way to impart several serious scholarly principles to their students. If there is any support for this, I would be willing to invest some time to further develop the guide and outreach system. --Arg342 (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Any further comments? I am willing to put energy into this if there is support... Thanks, --Arg342 (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Exemplar reference articles

I have split this this sub thread.--ClemRutter (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

One solution would be simply to refer would-be school article creators to some example of reasonably good school articles. Hanley Castle High School was was promoted to Good article on 30 August 2012. There are 78 good articles for educational institution of all kinds of which there are 4 GA for secondary schools in the UK. Hanley High School is the first state school in the UK to become GA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have found giving people examples of well written articles effective, although the page I cite by far the most when giving feedback is WP:WPSCH/AG - it could always be split out re-organized as neccasery, possibly with another page aimed at new users. On the stubs issue, there a bit like Marmite - some people love them; some people hate them - when I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article requests I tried to steer a middle-ground by not saying one couldn't create stubs, but instead staying that one should at least have WP:N in mind so they wouldn't find their efforts wasted due to deletion of the article at a later date. CT Cooper · talk 20:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

We have to be careful about how we talk about GA's as guides for editors to use in creating their own articles, however. I think that a lot of students would be put off by the level of detail and research required to get something to GA, whereas we are initially only looking for schools to get started, then move up through the ranks (whether by an OWNer or otherwise). ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in such cases perhaps using a reasonable C or B-class article as an example than using a GA/FA so not to overwhelm them, and in article assessments I try and focus feedback on what needs to be done on getting the article to the next "level" rather than all the way to GA or FA. CT Cooper · talk 13:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

We really need to target the examples at many levels. I was asked to help with the schools assessment backlog at WP:Cheshire and tried to comment on each- there were a large number of stubs, and the most usually form of advice was-- thanks for showing an interest, it is really important that each fact is supported by a reference. To help me to stay on focus I penned User:ClemRutter/Assessment for settlement articles- and then substitued the FA Judd School, GA Hanley Castle High School, B Petersfield School, C(--forget which--) and Start Ruskin Sports College.

Each type of school needs separate advice at each level-the former maths school and direct grant grammars can talk about founders, while the RoSLA secmods turned comprehensives have different stories to tell and need different advice. Goodness knows what you say to the pay-to-learn sector such as Gads Hill School- I digress. --ClemRutter (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Two further thoughts- the list of exemplar articles is really a 2 dimensional table Country/Quality with two entries in each cell State School/Money making business. The articles I think should be lifted from previous edits- then we can comment on how they can be improved and a link to show how they were improved.

Staff often see articles on their own school and would like simple instructions on how to make them acceptable. We need something in professional speak to tell them what to do. A simple course on editing that emphasises:

1. create a User account so we can talk to you and send you a welcolm message with editing guidance
2. delete all the false information and comment on what you have done.
3. if it moves reference it, if it doesn't still reference it.
4. go to the talk page and describe any issues you think should be included
5. give them a link here so they can ask for help.--ClemRutter (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

As I see it, there need to be a few sections aimed at secondary schools that might be contributing to their own articles.

• To District Superintendents and School Principals: Explaining that Wikipedia is a true encyclopedia. Everything about the school, the good, the bad and the ugly should be included. Any known reports that put the school in a good light can be included. It should explain the educational benefits to the students and the benefits to the school and district: "any publicity is good publicity".
• To the Educators working with the students: An overview of Wikipedia, and an explanation of how the project might be organized for the class. One or two students could be designated as editors (the ones actually logging in to Wikipedia and posting the end content). Others in the class can be researchers and copywriters, ultimately feeding material to the editors. There can also be a photographer and perhaps one or two to supply images such as a logo.
• To the young people preparing the material: an explanation of Wikipedia and its ground rules. This should include instructions on creating a user account, and a reminder to post a COI notice on the school's talk page. This also explains more technical details about writing the article. It also provides a reference to the Exemplar Articles. By using this, the teacher and the editor can guide the others in the class as to what is needed.

And yes, there does need to be a communications section so that any of the involved parties can get help from us. As I see it this turns into a FAQ, so when inquiries come in, the FAQ can be expanded and the inquiring person can be directed to the new FAQ section.

There does need to be a friendly how to write guideline. That is going to take some time, but will be worth it to both the new proposed school self editing group and the traditional Wikipedia editors. --Arg342 (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

School alumni edit

I want to draw attention to some edit-warring that has been going on between Edwardx and Toddst1 (both experienced editors), and some others, particularly, but not exclusively, in relation to Camden School for Girls. Briefly, Edwardx had been working through the list of notable old girls and boys of the school included in the article, adding the names to Category:People educated at Camden School for Girls; Toddst1 took exception to this, reverted all those edits, and also deleted virtually the whole of the list from the article (43 names deleted, leaving just 3). Toddst1's justification was "massive WP:BLP issue", apparently in reference to the fact that the individual's attendance at the school was not sourced (the three surviving names are sourced). 8 of the deleted individuals are in fact dead; in several other cases the individual's schooling is adequately sourced in their own biographical article; in other cases it is not. Edwardx has commented on his talk page that "whether someone attended a particular school does not appear to be a very contentious issue". It seems to me there are some broader policy issues here, and I'm throwing the matter open for discussion in this forum. GrindtXX (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Not an edit war. It's simple removal of unsourced WP:BLP info in accordance with policy. Toddst1 (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I probably removed a few unsourced entries about dead people, but WP:V still applies. Don't get hung up on the details. Toddst1 (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Every entry in an alumni list should be properly sourced. Some editors seem to be happy to accept entries where attendance at the school is sourced in the subject's own article, but my own opinion is that not copying the reference across to the school article is lazy. As such I fully support Toddst1's actions and certainly don't see it as something that Edwardx should be reverting. --Bob Re-born (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

But it's WP:POINTy to remove entries that you know can be sourced from the subjects' own articles, and I think just plain disruptive to do it without regard to whether the inclusion is verifiable, not to mention actually contrary to policy. WP:V does not require all content to have citations, only that it is verifiable, nor does WP:BLP reach so far as to sanction any and all removal of content regarding BLPs just because it is presently not directly cited. WP:PRESERVE, however, does require that content not be removed because of fixable issues, and WP:BLPDEL also says to fix what is fixable, remove only what is not.

More broadly, any time the issue has come up for general discussion, there has never been a clear consensus regarding whether lists of articles should have citations within the list itself to justify inclusion or whether it's sufficient to have the citation in the linked article. It's not simply a matter of laziness; it's a valid question as to whether it's worth it to more than double the size of a list by duplicating citations from each article for mundane facts such as school attendance. postdlf (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WP:PRESERVE is treated as nothing more than advice which is happily ignored by a number of very active editors. I took one to task for mass deleting easily fixable content from articles a few weeks ago and the upshot of that conversation was that it wasn't his responsibility to fix articles, it's mine! So, apparently, I'm expected to wikistalk him and fix the articles that he couldn't be bothered to fix for himself. The culture here at wikipedia encourages lazy editing. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting on your particular past dispute (and my past interactions with that editor have been constructive), anyyone who chooses to edit something has the responsibility of editing it properly. That means constructively, not reductively, and that means following the spirit of all policies, not "enforcing" one policy to the detriment of others. postdlf (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

As I said, nice sentiment. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is a policy. WP:LISTPEOPLE is an MoS guideline. Together they provide me with a very clear interpretation for school alumni. As one of the most regular and frequent patrollers of edits to school articles (1,000s on my watchlist) I radically delete unsourced alumni entries because a) they are the work of extremely lazy contributors and take only seconds to add - if I were to spend long minutes looking for their sources for them I would have little time for anything else I do on Wikipedia. The Twinkle script leaves adequate notice on their talk pages and should encourage them to reinsert the entry with reliable sources; b) The WP:BLP policy rules living persons and an unsourced alumnus is a contentious claim, many additions are hoaxes or vandalism, so I consider removal to be the default procedure, unfortunately, but not only, because school articles are heavily susceptible to vandalism, not all of which by any means is caught by vandalism and recent changes patrollers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE is policy, yet I don't see that reflected in what you wrote. How do you think PRESERVE interacts with BURDEN? And why is alumnus status "contentious", such that urgent deletion is appropriate? What, then, isn't contentious? postdlf (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

GMAFB. A massive list of unsourced claims about people (living or dead) flies in the face of WP:V whether or not those claims can be chased down or not.

Nothing was "urgent" - it was just done. You want to fix it? Go ahead - restore it and provide sources. More importantly, stop the drama-mongering. Toddst1 (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The rest of us are having a discussion about policy and best practice. You are free to not participate. postdlf (talk) 06:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, counselor. Proceed with your important business. Toddst1 (talk) 06:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This issue of how to apply WP:V regarding material that is currently unsourced but not necessarily unverifiable just came up in an ANI discussion here. I suggest everyone read Uncle G's comments in particular. postdlf (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that link. Essential reading - Uncle G's comments are cogent and compelling. In case anyone was wondering, I've been avoiding getting involved in this WikiProject Schools discussion, as the underlying events led me to becoming rather disillusioned about contributing to Wikipedia generally. Optimism is slowly returning. Edwardx (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

@postdlf: You possibly didn't fully digest what I wrote above otherwise you probably wouldn't be asking those questions. Perhaps you could consider adding a couple of thousand school articles to your watchlist and help out with the dozens of daily drive-by additions of alumni - many are blatantly fake while even among those that are blue linked many lack verifiabilty of their school attendance in their Wikipedia articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've heard that many times, "I can't be bothered to do X because there is too much to do and it takes too much time." You're a volunteer, not a paid employee, so you're not under a quota. So no, that doesn't address any of my questions. Assume I'm a reasonable person and let's talk about WP:PRESERVE and what "contentious" means in this context. postdlf (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Kudpung raises a very valid point. I too watch hundreds of school articles and the primary thing I do at them is remove unsourced notable alumni. There is an essay WP:WTAF. Since you are supposed to have enough sources to write an article to put someone in a "notable" list, the point of the essay is write the article. Removing unsourced "alum's" is not the big deal you are making it. If they are notable people, they should already have an article here. If they don't, then removing them with the unreferenced twinkle notification to the editor and an edit summary mentioning WP:WTAF should get some action on getting an article created for them. If it doesn't, it is a fair assumption they are just not notable. If you want to see an example of what I mean (it is a settlement article, not a school article, but the same rules apply), look at the recent edit history of Clarkston, Michigan and follow back to the talk page of the (obvious) child that is adding his name repeatedly there and to the local high school. Wikipedia is not the place to put your cousins name, and I know from experience that a lot of notable alum edits are just that. Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb I've seen proposed is that for any list of people that could be subject to being flooded by non-notable entries (so we're not talking about lists of members of parliament and the like), every entry added should at minimum have an article or a reference if it is a redlink to at least provide some support that it might merit an article. So if that's all we're talking about is removing redlinks that have no references, I don't see much cause for objecting to that, but that's not what I understood the issue to be in this thread. postdlf (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The original issue was that in the "Notable alumni" section of Camden School for Girls there were 46 names, of which six were red-linked (but all six with some indication of notability, albeit unreferenced). I created Category:People educated at Camden School for Girls and added that category to each of the other 40 articles. Toddst1 reverted all the category additons and reduced the "Notable alumni" section of Camden School for Girls to just the three names with citations in the list itself, citing BLP, even if their school attendance was cited in their article or they were dead. Edwardx (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The rule of thumb mentioned by postdlf is the approach I follow myself, and I've removed plenty of non-notable (ie red-linked or unlinked) unreferenced people from "notable" lists. If we were all to follow Toddst1's example, the "Notable residents" section of Clarkston, Michigan mentioned by Gtwfan52 would be reduced from eight to one entry, and I don't believe that is the outcome that Gtwfan52 is seeking. Edwardx (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

@postdlf: I'm not suggesting you are not a reasonable person and I'm glad you concur that the removal of unsourced redlinked list entries is appropriate, but I am suggesting that your WP:PRESERVE is misplaced in this instance. I do have an aversion to lazy creators of school stubs (and we've had a spate of those recently) but as one of about only 4 or 5 editors who regularly improve the 1,000s of school articles and often bring them to GA, I'm not going to dedicate all my time to sourcing alumni for those who do drive-by additions. Unverified living alumni are contentious BLPs so I default to delete and WP:BURDEN. What's wrong is that Wikipedia has never had a proper landing page for new editors/article creators, and although promised by the WMF nearly 2 years ago, they haven't done anything more about it in spite of me having been instrumental in extracting their promise and constantly applying pressure on them to do something. Such a page would radically reduce much of the workload of patrollers - as you rightly say, we're volunteers and not under any quota . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Why do you think alumni status should be considered "contentious" information within the meaning of WP:BLP? postdlf (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Because if those entries are based on lies, hoaxes, vandalism, or other deliberate misinformation, or simply totally unverifiable, they shouldn't be there. Their absence is not detriment to the overall quality of a school article - in fact, if you look at the encyclopedia from the point of view of a reader, the school article is better off without them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're conflating two separate things. We don't tolerate "lies, hoaxes, vandalism..." etc. regardless of whether it's regarding living people or whether the information is "contentious", so you need no special explanation to remove such vandalism or disruption (leaving the question open of how you've determined that is the case in any given situation; if you are merely assuming it is such whenever it is added without citation and regardless of by whom, then we have a problem). Per WP:BLP, we immediately remove uncited "contentious" information in BLPs; if it is not contentious, then we are implored to try and fix it. So if your point is that you remove what are essentially vandal edits not made in good faith, that has nothing to do with the subject of school alumni status and whether that subject should be viewed as contentious; that's entirely about the conduct of the editors. And again, that's not what this thread was originally about. postdlf (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't go around mass removing unsourced lists of alumni as normally such lists are not contentious. However, I would never complain about an established editor removing content after challenging its verifiability, as they permitted to do this - WP:V and WP:BURDEN are clear. Furthermore, WP:BLP policy states that editors must be more cautious about all material added about living people, and must provide verifiability, with those particular requirements not being conditional on the material being "contentious". While {{citation needed}} is a valid approach, editors are not compelled to follow it, and if there is even a hint of any alumni entry being contentious, then an entry should be removed. CT Cooper · talk 18:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that such lists are not contentious, and I find it diffcult to imagine any circumstances where they might be. The original edit in question reduced the list from 46 to 3 entries, and the edit summary read "removal of massive WP:BLP issue". The "issue" appears to be that the list entries were unsourced (even if school attendance was sourced on the BLP page itself), so it was not the verifiability that was being challenged. The list entries were verifiable and in most cases actually verified on the corresponding BLP pages. Also, I don't really follow the logic of how something can have a "hint" of being contentious. Something is either contentious or not (a subjective call, admittedly), with contentiousness depending on a range of factors. Perhaps the answer is (at minimum) not to remove items from non-contentious lists, where the fact in question is verified in the corresponding WP biography. Furthermore, even when unverified (as long as the fact is verifiable), then I see no convincing basis in policy to remove an item from such a list. Edwardx (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If an editor in good faith believes that an addition might be contentious under WP:BLP policy, and gives a plausible explanation as to why, then that view should be respected; my point being that any sort of edit warring over whether something is contentious under BLP policy is unacceptable. I actually think there are many circumstances in which such additions could be contentious - to give an example, if there were contradicting claims in sources on where someone went to school, then that maybe contentious; if it differed from a person's recorded claims on where they went to school and therefore suggested they were lying, that would definitely be contentious - either circumstances are rare but I'm sure they do happen. Also, claims that people who have engaged in criminality went to a certain school have been a contentious issue in the past, although that is generally contentious to the school, not the person themselves. I disagree that contentiousness is a simple yes/no issue, some things are more contentious than others, and it is subjective on where one draws the line with policy. My interpretation of WP:BLP and its call for sensitivity and caution, is when something is borderline, it should default to being dealt with as contentious.

As for the issue of people adding content sourced in other articles but not sourced where they are adding it; this is bad practice, as it makes it difficult over time to tell what is verified and what isn't, and articles should be sourced independently. While I wouldn't go as far as to it disruptive editing, and I agree that if someone points out that a particular entry is sourced in a linked BLP article, then removing it from the alumni list is normally not justified, such practices certainly has the potential to undermine attempts to enforce WP:V. As a result, if I saw someone adding entries to lists without giving the source via in-line citation, I would request that they do so in future, regardless of the status of other articles on the matter. CT Cooper · talk 20:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we may be somewhat at cross-purposes here, so I will attempt to address some possible misunderstandings. There has not been any "edit-warring" as mistakenly stated in the first post in this thread. However, in my opinion, Toddst1 did not give a "plausible explanation" in the edit summary, although he did later provide one in this discussion. Also, I have never stated that contentiousness was "a simple yes/no issue" - if you could please re-read what I wrote, you will see that we are essentially in agreement on its subjectivity.

As for your second paragraph, Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines#Alumni (and I note that you are one of the Admin Coordinators) states: "When alumni have their own articles in mainspace, it is not necessary for their notability to be referenced, as long as it is done in the biographical articles". I don't disagree that it might be preferable to have the same citation in the alumni list, but its absence is not a reasonable basis for the deletion of names from an alumni list. Edwardx (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I read what you wrote and I quote "something is either contentious or [it is] not", which I made a reasonable interpretation of and do stand by, but if we do in fact agree then the point is mute. As for the edit warring and related issues, I was speaking generally and hypothetically about how this issue should be approached, not about any one particular incident. I am one of the project co-ordinators, a title created by Kudpung, but which is unofficial and unimportant and does not mean I have gone over with a fine tooth come every single word on the article guidelines page - perhaps I should do so at some point, as I already have for some sections, but please bear in mind that a lot of that page is over a decade old - the BLP policy may have not even existed when that was written. Both the presence of the article co-ordinators at the top of the page and the particular sentence about citing alumni seem to be sending out the wrong signals here. The practice of listing alumni without citation is likely to store-up a lot of trouble down the road, so I think at best the practice should be tolerated but not encouraged. If such an addition does not have consensus, then it should state the reality of the situation, which is that it remains controversial, and that many editors that don't follow school article practices may delete such lists on instinct. CT Cooper · talk 21:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Re-reading what I've written, I did say that. And your interpretation is entirely reasonable. Sorry about that. I should have said something like contentiousness is a continuum, and different editors may have quite different opinions on whether something is or is not contentious. WP:BLP has many mentions of "contentious", without any real clarification (there or elsewhere in policy). Anyway, if you're at tomorrow's meetup, perhaps we can discuss the wider issues, including a consistent policy about these sort of lists. I wasn't having a dig at you or anyone else, merely trying to suggest that if you look hard enough in policies/guidelines, you can usually find something to support both sides of any debate. Edwardx (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind thoughts, but I wasn't offended, and yes I can understand what you mean - what is contentious and what isn't is a very subjective and complex question. I would be happy to discuss the issue at tomorrow's London meetup, as I should be there. I have trouble remembering faces and even more trouble linking them to usernames - I missed London 64 due to an eye infection, and I don't remember if I met you at 63 - in any case, I look forward to meeting you. CT Cooper · talk 15:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• I was asked to come here to offer an opinion on school alumni lists, notability and citations. I am not replying to anyone, nor have I read, in more than cursory detail, the foregoing discussion. I simply offer an opinion. My view can best be described in the following short bullet points:

• An alumnus may only be added if they are notable, verifiably so, in WP:RS.
• An alumnus who is added need not have his/her own Wikipedia article. Redlinks or no links are acceptable. But their notability must be such that an article, if present or 'to be created' is about someone who would pass WP:GNG
• To be part of a list of alumni of Foo Establishment, at least one citation in the list of alumni must cite them as being an alumnus of Foo Establishment.
• A citation that one is an alumnus of Foo Establishment is acceptable in a primary source published (eg) by Foo Establishment, though I prefer a fully WP:RS for it. Sometimes one must rely on Foo Establishment for its own list of alumni. This is not an issue since the alumnus already passes WP:GNG criteria
• For a living alumnus it is clear to me that WP:BLP demands more rigour in citation of their attendance at Foo Establishment than a dead alumnus.
• Ideally all alumni of Foo Establishment should be treated with WP:BLP rigour, living or dead.

I am not part of this wikiproject. I am a generalist editor with a strong bias towards every fact being a cited fact, and every list entry of any sort a cited entry. Despite that bias I also appreciate that exceptions may exist. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a note wrt living people: WP:NLIST is really the go to rule here. It is very clear: living people on lists of these type (alumni, residents, caste/tribal members, etc.) must have a reliable source (this can be on the list or on the person's article, if they have one) that verifies 1) that the person is important (lower than notability, higher than "they exist and did something") and 2) the person attended the school. Any other position is contrary to NLIST. I use that reference all of the time to remove or revert any redlinked, unsourced entry. For entries with a live article, I either just trust that the info is verified on the target article (if I'm short on time, and especially if the editor adding it is experienced), or go check. WP:PRESERVE is nice, but in this case we have a specific prohibition, so I don't think that the general idea of preserving potentially good info is strong enough to trump the clear need to remove. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement. The way I read WP:NLIST is that if you do not have enough to write an article on the subject, they do not belong on lists such as we are discussing. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, noting Qwyrxian's comment that the list does NOT have to include the citation, as long as the article itself does; although I accept that it can make life easier and save time if the source appears in both places. I have also removed numerous unsourced redlinked entries, but I do first try to find sources to confirm importance and school attendance. Edwardx (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll just add that I concur with Qwyrxian and Gtwfan52, and while I interpret all things BLP perhaps rather strictly and default to 'delete', I have never received any complaints for the 1,000s of unsubstantiated alumini list entries I have removed (most are added by SPA IPs anyway). That said, if there were to a consensus to modify the practice, I would be quite happy to go along with it. What conclusions did you guys come to at the meetup? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I was kept occupied by others, which unfortunately meant that we didn't get to chat about it. Perhaps next time. CT Cooper · talk 17:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)