Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Assessment review?

I think it would be a good idea for someone to check the recent assessments by User:203.206.253.199. They have rated Talk:St Vincent's College [1], Talk:The King's School, Sydney [2] and Talk:Presbyterian Ladies' College, Sydney [3] as start class, high importance schools. I suspect these are vanity edits. Not being a member of the project nor familiar with your criteria myself, perhaps a registered user from the project could check them? Blarneytherinosaur talk 03:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't speak to the importance criteria. That IP address appears to be a newbie - only a few edits, but they appear to be in good faith. Jordan Brown 04:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
First off, thank you for letting us know. We at the assessment department really appreciate your help. I've had a look at these article and have reassessed them. I'm not sure that they are "vanity" edits but two of them were inaccurate. I've fixed them and placed summaries on our our page. Once again, thank you for helping! Adam McCormick 04:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
No worries. I could have simply reverted the edits, but I agree that the other contributions look harmless enought, so I thought it would be more constructive to mention it here. I'll let you know if I spot any more. (Looking at the assessment page, I see that you get a lot of work done for a small number of people. Great work!) Blarneytherinosaur talk 08:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
This might be out of place, but I could not find another categoy to stick my comment in. I am appealing for someone with the project teams to Rate the page that I have been creating on [Hazel Green High School]. I would love some outside opinions and ideas. I really want to make this article better. Thank you for your time.

--HGHSTROJAN 06:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Assessment is the place to post assessment requests, that said, have a look at that page for the assessment (in five minutes or so). Also you can link with [[Hazel green high school]]Adam McCormick 06:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I don't have time to go on a big rant, but I am sick of cleaning up vandalism from non-notable schools. Most recently, (Bispham High School). We seriously need to start nuking the loads of non-notable middle and high school articles that are being created by school kids with biased inaccurate information which serve no purpose but to waste editors time cleaning up vandalism. I contend the recent laxity towards these articles is propelling more creation, and it is growing out of control. People are using this argument : [4]. AKA "If we have an article on po-dunk Illinois elementary school, why can't we have an article on ____?" Danski14 18:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

And seriously, can a High school have 31,000 students?? [5] Danski14 18:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
For more evidence, check out recent IP edits anytime during the school day. [6]. Danski14 18:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
(No, a high school probably can't have 31K students, but in that same diff note that the student uprising against the new tardy policy was led by Santa and Hitler... it's vandalism; it doesn't have to make sense.)
Indeed it's a problem, and it's not one that will go away on its own because there's always a new crop of students who think it's cool that they can make changes. Personally, I'd rather address the problem by being much more aggressive about semi-protecting articles, possibly to the point of routinely semi-protecting all articles about schools. Closing out anonymous vandals won't cure the entire problem, but it'd make a big dent.
I tend towards inclusionism here. I can't justify including most schools on any rational basis, but I know that I like that my alma mater and the school down the street are included.
Also, I'd rather that they vandalize Wikipedia than spraypaint a wall somewhere... Wikipedia is easier to fix. Maybe they'll grow up, and do so at a lower cost to society.
Jordan Brown 19:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a tough problem...I tend to lean towards usually lean towards inclusionism myself. However, in this case, I believe that many schools just don't need an article. Some school clearly are notable: for instance long standing schools in metropolitan areas, historical schools, high ranked schools, and specialty, private or unusual schools, etc. Thats why we need to re-institute WP:SCHOOL, so admins have a criteria by which to delete new school articles. New users are creating non-notable school articles which are being overlooked. They are not watch listed, and vandalism and POV often go un checked. What is a resulting is an unmanageable proliferation of stubby school articles which do not assert notability and usually contain various trivia. Yeah, I guess some would qualify for semi-protection, but is that a solution? Any contributions to these articles are probably going to be coming from new or anonymous users anyways, so the articles would probably just sit stagnant.
Also, if people want to see some of the "bad" new school articles that are being created, check out this bot-generated page, User:AlexNewArtBot/BadSearchResult. You can search for "school" and find the articles. If not deleted, many need to be tagged with the WPSCHOOLS template. Danski14 17:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
And I forgot to mention it, but merging should also be considered. My high school is merged in under the city it is in. Danski14 19:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Probably the biggest problem in school notability is that the vast majority of schools are quite important to a few hundred or a few thousand people... and of no interest whatsoever to the rest of the world. I guess that if I had to draw a line around "worthy" schools, it would be a pragmatic one based on whether there are people who are interested enough to write about them and maintain the articles. I'm happy to keep well-written and well-maintained articles about schools that are otherwise completely un-noteworthy - I don't think that they detract from the value of the encyclopedia, and if they make the few people who are interested happy, great; maybe they will move on to more notable topics. Jordan Brown 21:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I just looked at the first 20 or so of the "bad" new school articles on the above list--almost every one was a redirect. I think that his bot needs a little work.--Hjal 05:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
A Notable school is one that has some higher relevance than as an extension of Friends Reunited Columbine, Eton those are notable schools, a school that someone who didn't attend or live near it could name. most are little better than adverts this one for instance Mayfield School (Portsmouth) Notability Crusader 07:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done some work on the first mentioned school in this list, which has now been merged into Bispham High School Arts College and made sure that the information is correct and removed any vandalism as soon as it appeared. Having said that, the amount of vandalism recently on the article, has been both negligible, and certainly in comparison to numerous other wikipedia pages, virtually non-existent. And I am attempting to re-write the article so that is not only more comprehensive, but is well written and maintained. I had wondered why Notabilty Crusader had seemingly randomly proposed the article be merged earlier today, and this now explains it. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 15:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles - deletion question

We need to have some sort of ground rule on whether articles on schools should be CSD'd, or sent to AFD - if we have this policy in place it could save us from having arguments like the following:

A: This school is non-notable.

B: It is notable.

A: Where are the reliable sources that assert notability??

B: ???

A: This should be speedily deleted

B: No it shouldn't, take it to AFD instead.

If we had some sort of ground rule, it could avoid situations like this.

I'm not one for mass-nuking of articles on schools, as it seems bad practice to mass-nuke them unless the content is obvious vandalism (e.g. "Joe Public is a loser. His school is horrid") and not written in an encyclopedic tone.

I realize this may sound like a controversial proposal, but I'd appreciate the feedback on it. --sunstar nettalk 09:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a currently inactive/historical guideline at Wikipedia:Schools which was an attempt to interpret WP:N as it applied to schools. WP:N is currently under active discussion so the schools guideline has been temporarily put on hold until WP:N is resolved. In practice it seems that most school articles which come up for deletion either get expanded with suitable references or get merged with another article so it seems to me that it is preferable to add a "merge" or "sources" template rather than recommend an article for deletion. I'm not sure what the protocol is for merging articles but I would have thought that it might be best to have some policy of a speedy merge for new school articles which don't yet have sufficient content to merit an article. All places are notable so schools can be mentioned in an article on the town, village, etc. in which they are located. Dahliarose 09:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Another alternative for US schools would be to have articles on school districts and keep all the schools in each district on the district page, with exceptions for schools which are obviously notable (e.g. Columbine High School). I understand this would not work for the UK and possibly other countries because the administrative districts are much larger than in the US, so too many schools would have to be included and the pages would be unwieldy. --Butseriouslyfolks 17:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Playing devil's advocate for a moment, is Columbine High School really notable? Sure, Columbine High School massacre is notable... but it has its own article; is there really a need for a separate article about the school? The bulk of the text in the school's article appears to be on the shooting incident, and so should probably belong in the shooting article... the rest is vanilla high school stuff, no more notable than for any other high school. Jordan Brown 17:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes I'd say it is very notable. The shooting happened there and it says they got forth in some national cheering champiopnship. WP policy says keep schools that win national championships. Saying delete Columbine HS because there is an article on the shooting already is like saying delete the pentagon, WTC, and Shanksville, PA articles because there is already an article on September 11 attacks. I am alll for having as many school articles as possible, and I have no problem in reading them all. WP is only limited by the space on their servers, and that is not a concern right now. So no worries. KeepOnTruckin Complain to me | my work here 19:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Continuing as a devil's advocate: the Pentagon and the WTC are notable in their own right - Pentagon is the HQ for US military and the world's largest office building; WTC was the tallest building in the US and the world's largest office building, not to mention a major commerce center. Shanksville PA is notable because of the general policy that all places are automatically notable, but other than that probably isn't. (Check out Shanksville, PA and note that there's nothing unusual there other than the 9/11 reference.)
Note that Dixon High School, President Reagan's alma mater, doesn't have an article. Notability isn't inherited; mere involvement with a notable topic doesn't confer notability. (Granted, Columbine HS is more closely tied to the shootings than DHS is to RR.)
It seems likely that many or most schools will at some point during their history do well in some endeavour - state football champions, national spelling bee competitor, et cetera - and so would by that metric be notable... but that seems like a weak argument for including them.
Out of devil's advocate mode: I'm happy to keep any well written and maintained school articles, and to tolerate an above-average level of vandalism on those articles. I think they serve as a useful entry into Wikipedia for students, and supply local color that I consider appealing.
Jordan Brown 01:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Remember also 15 minutes of fame. Jordan Brown 01:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

naming conventions for schools

Do we have naming conventions for schools, because these schools seemed to be named whatever occured to the editor writing the article?

Is it name of school only, with location added if there are two such schools?

If location is added, is it , location or (location)?

Is it only city?

What about articles like, Our Lady of Good Counsel High School (Sion, Mumbai, India)?

What about articles like School (Country)??

Does the latter happen when there is more than one of the same school only one is in England and one in France?

If there are two schools both named A, one in England, one in France, are they named A (England) and A (France) or A (London) and A (Paris)?

What if there are three schools named A, one in England, one in France and two in America? Are they all named for their cities? Or are they named A (England), A (France), A (United States, Los Angeles), A (United States, Juno) or are the schools in America named A (United States, California, Los Angeles) and A (United States, Alaska, Juno)

or of course, A, United States, Alaska, Juno?

Do we have a complete set of naming conventions? Do we have a partial set? Do we have a decisions about styling? About anything?

If we don't have anything, or have partial stuff, how would people feel about my coming up with a complete naming convention system for schools? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   13:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for a complete naming convention. My only thought is that some of these editors get very protective over the names of their schools so we would need a united front on this. Adam McCormick 01:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I would agree that the names of most US States are unique enough (with the possible exception of Georgia) that they shouldn't need further disambiguation. I would say the same could be said of parts (not sure of the proper term) of England such as Wales, London, etc... I would this the best generalized convention would be:
School Name (Municipality, State/Region)

Broader School Category

I would like to create a parent category for all of the schools which use the WPSchools and WPSchoolsAssessment templates which would have sub categories of "Schools by importance" , "Schools by Quality", and "Unassessed School Articles". Seems like this would make finding schools a bit easier for the average person rather than just for this project. I'm going to look into it.

On a tangent issue, I'd like to add this category to the WPSchools Template. Adam McCormick 01:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, This already exists but some cleanup is definitely in order. I'll see what I can do. Adam McCormick 02:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Collierville Middle School

I just declined a speedy deletion on this, though it needs cleanup and sourcing if someone interested in school articles wants to have a look at it.--Isotope23 18:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just realised that this is part of the below "crusade" discussion. I will assesses this article for you as soon as I can. Camaron1 | Chris 17:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
No rush. I didn't realize this was part of a larger effort by an individual editor, I just came across this particular article when I was cleaning out the usual glut at WP:CSD. Regardless, it is appropriately tagged and stubbed at the moment, so whenever someone gets around to it is fine. Per the discussion below though, it might be a good idea if someone from your project keeps an eye on cat:CSD and PROD's for a while.--Isotope23 13:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
This article has now been assessed. Camaron1 | Chris 16:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Crusade on school articles in Portsmouth

Recently there has been an attempt by an anonymous user to have all school articles in Portsmouth deleted. The details are given here. I have strongley opposed it, judging by some of the articles are classed as "mid" importance and one "high". Camaron1 | Chris 17:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Odd that on the same day that User:Notability Crusader is doing exactly the same thing with districts in and around Southampton and also chose to propose a merger of one school in Bispham, Blackpool Lancashire. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 17:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am quite sure this is the same user, take a look at his/her contributions list. Camaron1 | Chris 17:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes indeed, exactly the same user, it would seem. Being relatively new to all this, I am not sure what the protocol is, but is it ok to edit using both a registered and unregistered name at the same time? ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 17:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
It is not encouraged no, and can if it is for abuse be grounds for a sock puppets case. However, this user has said they were this person and it seems, just decided to register on that day. Camaron1 | Chris 18:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, it is just a tad confusing when the same user was editing under two users around the same time. Thanks. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 18:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the details of the 82.26 Bandit here, with direct links to contributions for ease of reference. -- Drappel 20:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems that the calls for changes to schools/districts in Southampton and Portsmouth suggested by Notability Crusader (contributions) and the admitted same person 82.26.107.104 (contributions) made while the proposer was trying to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, have now all been removed. -- Drappel 11:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

First off refering to someone as a "Bandit" is clearly against wiki policy, secondly i am not trying to make a point, i am simple trying to restore some credibility so i started with my local area, other than call me names and the such has can anyone actually claim any of the schools i tagged are notable? this is insanity to allow schoolkids to create a page about there school which in the case of a Portsmouth means its really notably to about a 1000 pupils.Notability Crusader 10:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The idea that schools are notable only to their current pupils is preposterous. Schools are part of the local history of an area; they are of interest to current pupils, former pupils, current and former staff, local residents, visitors to the area, people interested in researching education and many more besides. See also WP:N and WP:JNN. Wikipedia policy is that "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by two or more published works." You'd be hard pressed to find a school that isn't the subject of non-trivial coverage in newspapers, local history books, biographies etc. Waggers 11:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that calling people names is against some Wikipedia policies. Though, saying that schools are not notable is just digging the grave for this project, and is naturally not going to go down very well with its members. Not all of us are school students, and I edit articles for schools I have never attended. Schools are usually notable under WP:N either as a school district article or as an individual article, although most are not useful to every Wikipedia reader, they can exist under this policy. Camaron1 | Chris 15:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe the title of "Bandit" is justified given the patern of edits. I personally looked at many of the school (and town) articles that User:Notability Crusader placed notability tags on and while many of them are stubs and do need expansion, he added the tags in a very general pattern including start and B class articles. I agree with many of his tags but it doesn't excuse these blanket additions of notability tags, the complete lack of discussion, or the lack of consideration of others' work. Notability Crusader does not WP:OWN Wikipedia and every notability tag should be justified with more than a boilerplate edit summary and nothing on the talk page. Wikipedia lives or dies on consensus, and if he's got as much history with wikipedia as he claims, he'd know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanbly (talk • contribs)
There's nothing like having a discussion like this to gain a consensus. I am enjoying the debate. This is an optimistic task we are involved in (there are a lot of schools). We will need/use hundreds if not thousands of editors or we will have to redefine notability to match our resources. Obviously if we cut that definition to the limit then we only do the same number of schools as Encarta et al and we'll be done by Xmas. It will be interesting to see how this resolves. I think no one is clever enough yet to know. (If you (dear reader) think you are then I will need to see the references to support your views :-) Victuallers 16:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
There has been some discussion here on User:Notability Crusader merger plans, little has reached consensus for a merger, so I think it is good to have a discussion here too. I assume good faith in User:Notability Crusader edits on Wikipedia, though I agree that attempts at deleting and redirecting articles can be considered vandalism. Camaron1 | Chris 17:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Participants

Does anyone have an objection to me alphabetizing the participants list? I'll give this Five days then I'll go ahead. Adam McCormick 05:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, many other projects do it. Camaron1 | Chris 09:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I prefer them in order of joining, especially since many of us didn't sign and date our entry.--Hjal 15:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Well that is a good point, though I doubt the current order is that accurate. I would also prefer if the naming's were done in the standard User X (talk · contribs) format. Camaron1 | Chris 16:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
If we want to encourage new members to join, it's better to leave the list in chronological order so that new members can just add their signature to the end. Otherwise they'll have to search through the list to find the right place to put themselves, which might discourage them. Either that, or new members will sign at the end and someone will have to keep re-sorting the list. Time better spent writing school articles if you ask me! Waggers 13:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Well if something that simple discourages users from signing up then it is arguable that they should not be signing up in the first place. I would say leave it for now, but as the list gets longer I would move it to its own subpage and put it in alphabetical order using User X (talk · contribs) for easy reference. Camaron1 | Chris 17:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination

A new WikiProject offers guidance to professional educators who incorporate Wikipedia editing assignments into their classrooms. It links to WikiProject Schools as a related project and welcomes volunteers. DurovaCharge! 19:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A Question for Diocesan Boys' School Hongkong

Dear managers of wikipedia,

In the history part, necessary footnotes have already been added, but no response is heard from you, what's the point?

By the way, is your kind label of lacking sources the justification that this page can be edited at everyone's own will, including creating a humiliating nickname to a former headmaster??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kolyudov (talk • contribs) 14:03, 13 April 2007

I think you misunderstand what Wikipedia is all about.
  1. Firstly, it's nobody's job to monitor a page to ensure that the article is fully referenced. If you believe the references are adequate, be bold and remove the tag in question. I'm sure someone else will add it if they disagree, and then you can talk to them about it.
  2. Anybody can edit Wikipedia. A lack of sources doesn't justify that, it doesn't need justification for any particular article. If you feel that you own the article, please read WP:OWN carefully.
  3. Because anybody can edit Wikipedia, it is unfortunately subject to vandalism. Please remove vandalism on sight. (It's as much your responsibility as anybody else's). Waggers 13:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I have looked at the article and I think it is correctly tagged. It has no references at all and it is a long article. However, judging by the large amount of external links and subscript numbers by statements, I assume attempts have been made at adding references. In that case, please read WP:REF. Camaron1 | Chris 17:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The article does have both references and footnotes but they were in the wrong place in the middle of the article rather than at the end. I've now repositioned them and removed the tag. The footnotes and references really need to be combined and the references should be cited in the proper way as it's all rather cumbersome at present. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources. Dahliarose 17:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, it was a bit confusing. Camaron1 | Chris 17:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

HS newspapers as sources

I am wanting to be able to add more information to a high school article, but know that there is a lot of information out there that can only be found within the school's newspaper. I am wondering what your opinions are on using high school newspapers as potential sources (I am going to assume a big NO for this one, but I'm asking for posterity) --24.19.144.93 00:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that most school news papers do not have an oversight process. As a primary source, newspapers are generally not reliable. Adam McCormick 04:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I think classifying HS newspapers as primary source is incorrect. It would be like the Metro section of the New York Times being classified as primary source because it's written by New Yorkers about New York. We also generally allow college newspapers as valid sources especially in college-related articles for lack of alternative commercial sources (see Kaavya Viswanathan, where a college paper broke the story before mainstream media). Although HS papers are supervised directly by their schools' administrators to a much greater degree than college papers, it is my impression (I was a staff writer in HS) that HS journos are no less "free speech"-minded than the professional press. They're not like typical alumni newsletters where only nice "spin" stories are printed. I also think invalidating HS papers on the basis of WP:V (ie, most people don't have access to HS papers unless they are students/faculty) is flawed since we readily allow obscure books and subscription journals to be used - presumably on the assumption that an expert who has access will come along to properly verify. In the case of HS-related articles which are mostly WP:LOCAL, we have experts in the form of the students themselves. Wl219 00:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Crossover between Wikiproject Schools and Wikiproject Education

I thought it might be better to continue this discussion on the talk page. I've just been looking at some of the articles which have been assessed as part of Wikiproject Education. It would appear that we seem to be duplicating our efforts in some instances. Wikiproject Education has already assessed some American high school articles and school district articles, and some schools seem to have been assessed by both Schools and Education. I wonder if Wikiproject Schools should confine itself to articles about individual schools and leave Wikiproject Education to deal with the more general articles, such as Secondary education. It might also be better if they also dealt with the articles about the various types of schools too, such as secondary school, high school, etc. There are far more individual school articles, so if Education dealt with the more general articles that would help to spread the workload. However, Wikiproject Education doesn't currently have a Collaboration of the Week, so I might just add the high school and secondary education articles next time the page is updated as I think they really are top priority and need some attention. Dahliarose 16:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Education aims to improve generally all education related articles, so there is going to be some crossover, though I think their focus is on more read articles like secondary school. I would generally agree with leaving non-school district and non-individual school education articles to another project - they just don't fit in with the general aims of this project, especially when looking at things like structure. Camaron1 | Chris 17:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that articles about schools (Types, districst, etc...) Should be in this project or in the university project. But really I'll assess anything Adam McCormick 18:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
If that is the case, then what about education by country articles such as Education in the UK, are they included? It has already been stated that qualification articles aren't in. I can see this getting complicated. Camaron1 | Chris 18:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that I've defined a very narrow schope (While not a narrow subject) education in the UK shoudn't be counted as a schools article but schools in the UK should Adam McCormick 05:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Camaron1 | Chris 08:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Does this section now need updating? Camaron1 | Chris 13:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


On a different note about overlapping projects--I think it might actually be a good thing to be assessed by multiple projects, even overlapping ones. Each project has a different scale and hopefully all projects would rate an article at any given time about the same quality wise but the editors would focus on different things needed to improve the article and they would probably have very different importance ratings.

If the two projects aren't doing much differently--they need to coordinate better. If they are doing much differently--they need to coordinate better and we should maybe change a few things in light of that. Either way talk more! Miss Mondegreen | Talk   13:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit dispute at Year-round school

It seems a bit petty to me, but two editors are arguing over whether images of a year-round school that's currently being debated (in other words, it may soon become an ex-year-round school) should be included in the article. I've put in my tuppence worth at Talk:Year-round school and would be grateful if you could spare a few minutes to help build some kind of consensus there one way or the other. Cheers, Waggers 20:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

We would greatly appreciate third-party contributors. Thanks, Nimur 20:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If I could offer my perspective on this argument it might help. My basic question is this: Is Wikipedia to be used to promote something, i.e. a commercial?

I have been in the year-round calendar debate since 1994 with people from the U.S., Canada, and the U.K.. I am thoroughly familiar with every aspect of it and would like to see a good article on it. However, I have run across many people who use unethical means to promote year-round school. When Wikipedia first came out, I knew that it probably would be used by people seeking to promote year-round school - or to depromote it - due to the obvious high rankings in search engines that it would undoubtedly get. Many people seeking to learn what year-round school is would surely end up at that article.

I find it interesting that Mr. Nimur keeps wanting to use year-round schools from his home county where it is being hotly debated. This is promotional. Is this neutral?

If you want to have a purely factual article, in keeping with NPOV which everyone keeps quoting from, then let's do it.

Why not use a picture of a school where it has been running for 10 years?

Again I ask: Is Wikipedia to be intentionally used for promotion? How does this align with other Wiki policies? Thanks - WesWalker 22:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • There are policies that specifically forbid using Wiki for promoting any cause (WP:NPOV, WP:ADVERT, for instance). The easy solution here is for any of us who work on either side of this debate to take a break from editing pages on the controversy and let unbiased edits prevail. Oh and please try to organize and sign your comments. ;) But that's just my two cents worth Adam McCormick 08:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing alumni

When sourcing alumni I am VERY reluctant to use alumni pages as source material (as in yes, the person went to the school and graduated a certain year). They are incredibly accurate, but have loads of personal information, and unlike certain types of websites, these are websites where people have a certain expectation of privacy, and while that expectation is totally and completely unrealistic--it is the web, we shouldn't be linking to that stuff.

There are midpoints--sites like classmates.com--less reliable because anyway can post and say that they or someone else attended a school, whereas alumni pages tend to be run by someone who oversees things, but at classmates.com etc--the only sort of personal information that is readily availabe is personal information that people who join the site agree to let others see. So the privacy concerns are dealt with, IMO. So my questions:

  • Are add-your-information-to-find-someone-from-the-past sites like classmates.com reliable enough?
  • Can we use alumni pages to source material and just not link to it on wikipedia? Have a section on the talk page explaining that alumni pages aren't allowed as links due to privacy concerns... Then keep a list of all alumni who have been sourced through alumni pages on the talk page. Something like that... It's obviously not ideal, but it's very hard to get linkable sources other than yearbooks and alumni sites for many alum, one reason that alumni lists are often just unsourced. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   08:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If a person has a website there is NO expectation of privacy, the goal of a webpage is not to maintain privacy it is in fact to do the opposite. If anything, most websites are greatful for any traffic directed their way Adam McCormick 23:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • If a person has a website about themselves then they have no expectations of privacy. They are choosing to put information about themselves in the public domain, and they also control the information on that website. I really do fail to see why, from the point of view of privacy, they should not be linked to on wikipedia.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 23:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
But it's not a website about themselves. The alumni website for the class of 71 from a particular high school isn't about one person--it's a place to share information amoung a class and to coordinate things like reunions. Many of these websites are catching on and locking things like message boards, but many aren't, and there is personal information everywhere. They are NOT looking for traffic, especially if they have a notable alum. It isn't our job to maintain their privacy, but we're talking about linking to a website that includes private information--names, addresses, phone numbers of NOTABLE people. So anyone who is searching for a notable person and finds that they attended a school by way of our article can go to the footnotes and go to the alumni website for that notable person and find personal information--not just contact information but messages boards etc. From my point of view that's furthering the ability of the average person to be a paparazzo--to get as much information as possible on someone famous or slightly famous and haunt their every move--in person, online, whatever. I at least am certainly not comfortable with it.  ::We may not be directly putting people's personal information on Wikipedia, but I find directly linking to it just as bad. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   05:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Tangerines and Adam on this one. If somebody wants privacy then they should not be placing personal information on the internet in the first place. If we can find someones personal information, somebody who wants it for malicious use can do so just as easily - regardless on if it is sourced or not. Camaron1 | Chris 09:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Possibly. Except that if you were searching for these people, you'd never find these sites--I know, I've checked. The alumni sites in question I found becuase they were originally set up as a small subsection of a school website. The school website changed and no longer does that, but I bookmarked all the alumni sites. If you go to the school website--they aren't there, if you google them, nada. The only reason that I know about stuff like the alumni sites in question is that I've spent an incredible amount of time researching a particular school. And perhaps, if someone spent an incredible amount of time searching for a certain person they could find this information, but there's a difference between someone being motivated enough to do that, and just handing it to them.
Also, often these people haven't put their own information up, but someone coordinating the class has. They may have mailed their information in, and the person coordinating posted everything online. There is a major difference between these personal sites and people who willing list themselves at places like classmates.com etc. I would use the listing of people who willing added themselves to the alumni section of a high school website. There's a difference between linking to information that people are willing to share with others and private information that people aren't and that the person in question may not even know is online. And the whole "if it's online it's fair game thing" is very nice and all, but we're also talking about old websites, some of which aren't maintained and are from when the internet was different. And we're also talking about alumni sites--class reunions from the 20s and 30s and 40s. These are not people who were taught to use computers in school or use them in the workplace, and so while they may be as proficent and know as much or more as the kid who never gets up from the computer and doesn't remember the world before computers, the assumption that the understanding of the web for what it is is that widespread is troubling.
It feels to me like the replies I am getting are along the lines of "we can and they should know better" and I don't see a reason why we need to, and I think that we should behave better. Could I get opinions on the other question I asked...the verifiablity of provide your own information alumni sources? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   09:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Under Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons references are very important, non-sourced disputable information about a person can be removed immediately without discussion under this policy. So if information about someone is going to be added it should be sourced, or not added at all. Also, though this rule was not made for this I feel it is relevant; Wikipedia is not censored, WP:not#censored, under this policy if sources and links are relevant, they can be added. Camaron1 | Chris 10:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
That's wrong. Wikipedia is censored--we don't put people's phone numbers and addresses and other personal information online--in fact, that's a very serious violation of THE RULES. Look, let's be realistic here for a second. Articles like DeWitt Clinton High School are the norm amoung norable alum lists--dozens upon dozens of alums listed and only slightly over 20 verified by NNDB. The University High School (Los Angeles, California) article has 24 verified alum. It has 22 unverified at the moment. Yesterday, nothing was verified. I know what BLP says, but no one has answered my questions yet. If we have a source, but don't for example want to spill someone's personal details to the world, what do people think about handling those sourcing discussions via talk pages? And I've gotten no reply to my other question.
Also, in re BLP, what do you think a living person will be more upset about--that they are listed as an alum of the high school they went to with no PROOF!, or that they are not only listed as an alum of the high school they went to and if you go to the article and click on the footnote you can find personal info about them--including CONTACT information. For a great number of the unsourced ones, we have sources, but I'm not going to give the masses notable people's contact information and say, "here, stalk away". That's the whole reason that we have BLP. Now, is handling this off the main page with lists isn't good enough, and classmates.com etc, isn't good enough, a question no one wants to tackle, then I'm perfectly prepared to not include those alums and let the quality of the article lag. The quality of the article does not come at the expense of people's personal information and contact information--BLP says we are supposed to be insanely careful and somehow everyone here seems more worried about officially verifying the information and having a pretty footnote than about giving a notable person's home address and phone number away. I find this to be especially hypocritical given that most alum lists are unsourced and that the completely unsourced alum list wasn't even raised as an issue when the article in question was rated. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   13:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy states that articles are not censored, I agree that despite this adding very personal information to articles can not be very encyclopedic and should be avoided - sourcing however is a little different. In the end, banning usage of sources which could possibly lead people to very personal information has not reached any consensus and any attempt at introducing a guideline of this type would probably not reach consensus either. So, I see nothing wrong with continuing to discuss it, provided the participants keep a cool head please, WP:Cool. Camaron1 | Chris 14:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I understand the problem here. Can you give us an example of one of these alumni pages so that we can understand what you are talking about? If information is publicly posted on the internet and the source is reliable then I see no reason why that source should not be used regardless of whether the source provides the details of the person's home address and phone number. The only exception is if the source you are using is password protected and available to members only or to people paying a subscription as you should not link to an inaccessible source. If the information is already in the public domain then what is the problem? Sources are there to be used and should not be censored. Personal websites are probably less reliable as sources as some people deliberately mislead people about the school they went to, eg, Jeffrey Archer who I seem to remember at one time deliberately misled people into thinking that he attended Wellington College when in fact he attended the much less prestigious Wellington School in Somerset instead. Dahliarose 14:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

reply to dahliarose etc above, starting new indenting

  • First, Wikipedia is censored, and yes I mean article spaces. This generally comes into play on WP:BLP--someone posts someone's personal information--that's generally understood not to be ok and for WP:BLP it doesn't even have to be that. The article can be inaccurate and then there's a sudden WP:OFFICE lockdown. Yes, Wikipedia is censored, especially in regards to living people.
  • Secondly, the issue with the sites in question is that they can't be found by googling or using other search engines. I found the sites because I was linked to them by an old version of the school site. The school site no longer does that.
  • The information is out there. But people can't find it until we stick it in their hands. I'm personally of the opinion that Wikipedia shouldn't be passing out the personal information of politicians and entertainers etc. And I don't think that censors Wikipedia. I think we can use other sources, or, if we have verified this information by a source like these alumni sites, then we can afford to put them on the article while we look for a source that doesn't give people their contact information.
  • Leaving this debate on ethics aside, I asked about other sources. I asked what people's opinions were on talk page handlings of sources and DIY alumni pages like classmates. Could people leave bashing ethics in the name of no-censorship for a minute to answer the questions I actually asked? Camaron1--I wasn't trying to proposed anything, much less a guideline. I was asking what opinions were on alternatives since I'd already decided not to link to people's home addresses. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   14:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I am not doing a "crusade" in the name of "no censorship", I am just referring to basic Wikipedia policies on that Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored as necessary. I agree with Dahliarose that public sources can be used regardless on if they give access to very personal information - though I also think we should not use sources with restricted access (like with passwords) and I do not consider special member sites that reliable - so I would like to look to alternatives. Camaron1 | Chris 15:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I still don't understand the problem with your alumni sites. Either the pages exist on the web or they don't. As I said before, perhaps you can show us an example so that we can understand what you're talking about. If such pages exist, however difficult they might be to find, then it is perfectly legitimate to link to them. Anyone in the public domain must expect to have their personal details made available and I don't see why Wikipedia should be any different. Wikipedia biography articles only ever publish birth dates, birth places, schools, etc, anyway and never publish people's addresses and telephone numbers. I'm not familiar with Classmates but I've just had a look and I don't think the site is suitable to use as a source as it is not possible to search the site without registering first. It will therefore not be possible to provide a link to the relevant page. Dahliarose 16:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I have also looked at classmates.com and as far as I can see most source-able information can not be viewed without registering and I would not consider it reliable, so I would advice against using it as a source. However, if something is in the public domain in most cases it can be sourced. I agree that contact information of people should not generally be included in articles, as it is un-encyclopedic, but not sourcing information because it might lead people into viewing peoples contact details off Wikipedia in my opinion does have at least some conflict with the wikipedia:not#censored policy as I stated earlier. I am with Dahliarose in that I think it would be beneficial to see some examples of "alumni sites" you refer to if you can. Camaron1 | Chris 17:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Is the fact that classmates requires registration the only problem? Because I don't understand that. We link to lots of sites that require registration, or what's more, require paid registration (newspapers, online journals etc). It is possible to provide a direct link, direct links exist--but classmates will ask you to log in if you aren't logged in or register. However, that doesn't mean that a direct link doesn't exist.
My issue is that we don't include invidual's contact information on wiki articles, but we would link to a class roster complete with phone numbers and addresses? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   20:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The best references are those where you just click on the source and you can view the source immediately, if it instead re-directs you to log-on page then there can be a problem; one of the intentions of sources is so people can look at them easily. Many sites with registration are sourced on Wikipedia, but they usually allow you to view the content without logging in. Camaron1 | Chris 20:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia guideline WP:EL applies in this instance. It specifically states "Sites that require registration or a paid subscription should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers". Classmates.com not only requires you to register to view the database but it would appear that you can only register if you have attended a school in the USA. The site is therefore completely inaccessible for the rest of the world. The whole point of providing a source is so that other people can check it to verify the information. There is no point in providing a source which cannot be verified by most of the world's population. I don't know what you mean by class roster websites (again a few examples might help) but so long as the sites do not require registration then I see no problem linking to them. Dahliarose 23:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
If I understand everything correctly, WP:EL concerns links that are not used as sources, so it does not apply. WP:RS concerns actual sources and it allows sites that require registration and even payments.(It's been re-written recently and now there's a hash up between it, WP:V and WP:ATT. In any case, registration sites, pay sites, and printed materials that require registration or fees are not prohibited.) -Will Beback · † · 23:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
While it's a nice idea that everyone should be able to read an article and then click to see the source, in reality, only using online sources accessible to all restricts almost everything. It not only restricts access to all books and printed sources that aren't avaliable online, but online does not equal free. One of the reasons I can source so many things with links and check sources etc, is because I have access to JSTOR and the NYTimes archives and LexisNexis etc.
On another note, the article in question University High School (Los Angeles, California) has a peer review that is open right now and comments are welcome. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   08:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Books and newspapers are ideal sources, but they are an entirely different proposition as they exist both in the printed format and also, increasingly, in online editions. Printed copies are sent out to all the major deposit libraries so that anyone anywhere in the world can request a print-out of a specific newspaper article or borrow a book via inter-library loan without having to pay an expensive subscription. Classmates.com is a different matter entirely. Regardless of the restricted access (WP:RS is not entirely clear on the matter), Classmates does not appear to me to count as a reliable source as there is no editorial control over the content so it is in effect a self-published source. I would have thought that other more reliable sources will exist for anyone who is notable enough to merit an article in Wikipedia. Dahliarose 09:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I would personally try and look for alternative sources, I wouldn't consider restricted access sites non-source-able, but WP:RS does not seem to clarify much on the matter, and the nature of classmates.com in my opinion, means that information taken from there should be treated with caution with its accuracy. If a person is notable enough for their own article or to appear on a school alumni list, then other sources should be findable. Camaron1 | Chris 19:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is searching database by database. First, there won't always be a source other than school yearbooks, and that requires a trip to the school library which I haven't got around to yet--and it will take forever when we only have a guess as to what years they went. But when there is a source, it's hard to find. I've googled and googled and googled for the school, and LATimes articles don't show up. And LATimes articles don't show up even in specified LexisNexis searches. But if you search the right way on LATimes.com, you can find lots of articles that mention where someone went to school, especially obituaries. While doing just a little research last night on LATimes.com and NYTimes.com I was able to source multiple alumni on the list and add ones as well. Oddly, these articles don't show up most of the time when searching for either the school or the alumni. And keep in mind that I only check a certain number of databases: increasingly more so as I've had increasingly uneven results from LexisNexis. The problem is is that it's a school with a TON of notable alumni and that's notable in so many ways and has had so much controversy and I know that it's been covered well, but if you depended upon what the web told you, you wouldn't see that. I really need to take some days off and take some field trips and do this the old fashioned way. It's nice to think that this kind of stuff is on the web, but really, only a fraction of it is.
In re classmates, when I brought it up I wasn't thinking of registration issues, I was thinking of content oversight. I agree with Dahliarose about the content oversight issue. And it takes forever for a page to load because of the bajillion ads a page, so I'm fine with avoiding them. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   21:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
There really aren't that many sources about even notable people that mention which high school they attended. Furthermore, alumni info doesn't tend to be controversial on Wikipedia. I suggest that we don't take too strict an interpretation of alumni-sourcing issues. Most school articles have far larger problems with sourcing than their alumni lists. -Will Beback · † · 21:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Woodlands Community School, Derby

This English school has an article as above on wikipedia. The way it is worded though, it comes across as if it were in reality a hoax and not a real school at all, with things like the school motto, "Sandhu's News, food and wine" and the quite frankly, ridiculous, main content - "We are not sure how old the school is" and mention of someone who allegedly went to the school whose acquaintance appeared on TV. The references lists an Ofsted report but does not link to it. In the text it says there are 220 "people" at the school, yet the infobox has 1185. And then it has an image of a Mr McMain, who isn't even listed as a school employee with the wording "The legend himself". It even lists a non-existent disambiguation page.

I have checked and the school does exist, but I doubt that they know much, if anything, about this article. I had thought of editing it myself, but to do so I would probably then remove virtually everything other than about one sentence. There are Ofsted reports online for the school and it is listed on the UK Good School Guide. I am more than happy to have a go at editing the page and adding the correct sources. But I just wanted to check first if that is what should happen? Thanks ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, this article needs a lot of work needing with it. I have added a complete rewrite tag to it with a link to this discussion for now. Camaron1 | Chris 20:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I have effectively re-written it. Please feel free to improve it further. -- zzuuzz(talk) 21:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that Zzuuss, much better now. I'll keep it on my Watchlist just in case too.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the rewrite. I used to go to this school and was going to edit it but was concentrating on Allestree the suburb it's in. Just FYI Sandhu's news food and wine is a shop not far from the school and Mr McMain used to be head of sixth form not sure if he still is. The ofsted report i put up.i could put a link up but thought a reference would be fine. I'll put a link up as well if needs be. allready done. Also i think the founder might be a joke as well. not sure how to check definitely needs a reference though Dommccas 18:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I just checked and Mr McMain is still head of sixth form 18:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
With Mr McMain, his image was in the Infobox, but just randomly without any explanation as to who he is or what his position is at the school other than "the legend himself". The way the article was worded it came across as a hoax. But I checked, saw that it was a school, and that it needed a complete re-write, it was a shame that it was in such a mess. With the founder, maybe it is best removing the name Bob Woodland for now until you can clarify the founders name. If the school has a website it might be mentioned on there? This might be of some use - http://www.goodschoolsguide.co.uk/?102272&Retry= ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the cleanup! I will assess this article as soon as I can. Camaron1 | Chris 19:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
This article has now been assessed. Camaron1 | Chris 16:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How to Add a School

I wrote an article about a school a few months ago, and it was flagged for all sorts of Wikipedia violations. I changed the article after getting some suggestions from an admin. However, my article is still flagged as "factual acuracy disputed." I have seen many other schools publish similar information about their schools, but they are not flagged that way. Also, I have seen the subject of my article shown in various lists of schools, yet it does not link to my article. How can I classify my article as a school? I have pasted below the questions I asked of another administrator, but was unable to get an answer. Any help is appreciated from anyone who knows the answers.....

[edit] Question About School Articles Hello,

I had contacted you a couple of months ago regarding the article I posted for Rosati-Kain High School: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosati-Kain_High_School . I am still fairly new to Wikipedia and I have been unable to find an answer to the following questions anywhere else on Wikipedia and I was hoping you might be able to help. If this is not your area of knowledge, I don't wish to bother you, but if you do know the answers, I would be very grateful.

I have been researching a few other schools in the area and I have found several of them to have articles on Wikipedia. These articles are linked to what I understand to be a "stub" article on schools in Missouri. Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_high_schools_in_Missouri . My question is, how can I make the listing of Rosati-Kain a link to this "stub"? Several of the schools listed have articles that link to the name of their schools on this list, and I would like to do the same with ours, but I have been unable to do so.

In addition, I have noticed that several schools similar to ours have pages that seem to present the same type of information as ours does, however, they do not have the "factual accuracy disputed" label. Here is an example of one, though there are several others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarnate_Word_Academy_%28Bel-Nor%2C_Missouri%29 . I have several sources I could cite, but none of them are online, so I could not include links to the original references when I created the article. But, if other schools are not required to include the same such references, why are we?

I am certainly not trying to get away with anything that is not within Wikipedia policies, and I am not trying to make an arguement out of it either. I guess I am just curious as to how these policies specifically apply to schools, since it seems as though my article does not do anything that other Missouri high schools aren't doing already with their articles. Yet, we are labelled "disputed" for it.

Any help to these two questions is appreciated, although if you do not know the answer I understand. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Annie Hafner (talk • contribs) 20:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

I would recommend you visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools, where you will find many editors who have considerable experience in related articles and who will be motivated to help you. Please let me know if they aren't helpful, but I'm sure they will be. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Annie Hafner 18:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Ok, these are big questions so I'm going to try to be brief.
    • First off Wikipedia isn't some massive centrally managed group, almost everything is done by simple people like you contributing. (So it's not really Uniform)
    • If the article is taged as "Factually disputed" it just needs to be referenced.
    • As far as sources go, non-electronic is fine as long as they are cited. Also be sure to look at the syntax for citing inline, possibly using the {{cite}} tag.
    • It's not that the other schools don't need the same attention yours does it's that noone has noticed their problems yet
    • The List of high schools in Missouri is just another page, edit it, add a link be WP:BOLD
    • Come visit us at the Assessment Department if you'd like some outside input. Adam McCormick 20:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

School not tagged

Nuclear froggy 18:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC) I recently came across the article Bradfield School, it's very messy, brief and has no references. Also it isn't tagged by WikiProject Schools. I created a discussion page. Just thought someone should check it out.

The school is now tagged, if you would like us to assess it feel free to put it on the Assessmenr Request list at the Assessment Department Adam McCormick 05:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Yep and I've cleaned it up now.

Punahou School

Aloha. User:Sr13 has requested a peer review for the Punahou School article here. Your help is appreciated. —Viriditas | Talk 19:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Roseland Christian School

If anyone could take a look at Roseland Christian (which I just created), I'd appreciate it. Thanks.--Eva bd 02:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice article, I will assess this for you as soon as I can. Camaron1 | Chris 10:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Now assessed. Camaron1 | Chris 19:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

speedying of schools

So, I run into number of articles about elementary, middle, and high schools that are up for speedy deletion. What is the policy for this. Assuming no special notability claimed. Should these be speedily deleted or not? Herostratus 17:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:CSD#Non-criteria unless the article has little or no context at all it is not eligible for speedy deletion even if it is not notable. Also, saying that an article is very short or is purely original research alone is not justification for speedy deletion. Hence, in most cases putting an article through WP:PROD or WP:AFD is more sensible. Camaron1 | Chris 18:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Er, yes but, "XYZ is an elementary school etc etc" is generally seen by taggers as not asserting notability. Herostratus 04:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The bottom line, at l;east in the context of this project is that these articles are created repeatedly even if they are SD'd. If these schools have any contributors then they are worth having. At absolute worst, they should be merged into the local municipality/districs page, but rerely if ever speedy'd Adam McCormick 05:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deletion is generally designed for articles that have no chance of asserting notability. It's to save time going through an AFD where the conclusion is obvious. With schools, there is often a high probability that they can provide enough references for notability, so asserting that it is a school is often considered enough to make this claim. Of course, one-sentence articles are often deleted - this is more in line with WP:WSIC (and often quite right too). I would expect, if not the author or the new page patroller, then at least the administrator to spend 30 seconds Googling the school and adding two sentences, a category, a stub tag, and a link, to turn the article into a viable stub. But this should really be done by the original author and if they can't be bothered, why should I care? Sometimes it is best to start again. -- zzuuzz(talk) 05:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it needs to be emphasised that if an article is not notable it is not automatically eligible for speedy deletion. Though, school articles that are very short are often deleted very quickly in large numbers because of there lack of context - in those cases I would aim to create school district article later on to cover those schools. Camaron1 | Chris 09:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It's long been argued that schools are inherently notable. If there is a shortage of verifiable information, then of course the title can be merged to a slightly larger stub about the school district. That way our readers will have at least some reference point when reading a biographical article that says mentions that so-and-so graduated from such-and-such high school in 19XX. More incoming links means more readers see the stubs and are hopefully inspired to improve them. Maybe it's close to their hometown and they have better access to published information, such as local newspaper articles, transcripts of the last school board meeting, states' summary reports of students' test performance, etc. The information is out there. As long as it can all be verified, there's no logical reason to refuse it (unless of course it's a copyright violation, or an attack page, or the work of a banned user's sockpuppet — none of these criteria address the merits of a particular topic). — CharlotteWebb 12:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Schools needing cleanup

Why is cat schools needing cleanup on the project page? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   10:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject is set to appear at the very front of Category:Schools needing cleanup. I think it's so people looking through the category will see that there is a WikiProject that can give guidance on cleaning up those articles. WODUP 07:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
If that's the case it should be placed at the top of the category page, not in the category Adam McCormick 22:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
It's already on the CAT page; I removed the WikiProject from the category. WODUP 02:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools/Archive_4&oldid=1137366428"