Wikipedia talk:Schools/Archive 6

message: (Cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:Schools)  Been away a little while, so I'm wondering whether the following summary is accurate.  Is the main disagreement between these two proposals that the "inclusionist" side (sorry to use labels like that, but it's hard to come up with anything else) wants routine but useful coverage (e.g. OFSTED reports) and local news coverage to count towards "multiple non-trivial published works", while the "deletionist" side (again, sorry) doesn't?  Thanks, JYolkowski // talk 01:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (My own opinion, not presuming to speak for everyone here) I think that's one main issue. If we're going to allow "routine" government coverage to count, we may as well be back to "include all schools". The government reports on just about everything-if we're to open that can of worms, "all restaurants are notable" since they all get health inspection reports. For that matter, "all people are notable" since just about everyone has some type of government record. When we're looking at notability, we should be looking for something above and beyond the trivial stuff that applies to every(one|thing) in the category by rote or requirement. Seraphimblade 01:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Its hard to compare, since both are changing continuously and substantially.  But the principal "core" difference is WP:SCHOOLS has supported the concept of being comprhensive, and this page has been based on notability.   But we should focus less on bringing these two school pages together, and look at bringing them closer to other existing pages, such as WP:N, WP:CORP, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:WEB, etc...  We have to remove the extra rules imposed against schools, that don't exist in other guideliens.  If you want to remove "preferencial" treatment of schools, you must also remove discriminatory treatment against them as well.  That means not adding these simple-minded words against "local" and "routine", which are unjustified.  --Rob 02:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, mostly.  Ultimately, I'd like to see schools judged on essentially the same criteria as we use for corporations or organizations (though some modifications are necessary, since most schools are neither for-profit nor function in the same manner as charitable organizations).  The standard should neither be significantly more nor significantly less difficult than the similar notability standards.  Focusing on the sources is definitely the way to go; I do feel like we're making some progress, despite the couple of issues that remain. Shimeru 04:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to show that the criteria you want is actually attainable, can you link to some school articles that you made, that fully meet the criteria you wish.  --Rob 08:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice qualification with the "that you made," but sure, I can offer you an example:  Wyoming Seminary, which I talked about in more detail a few sections up on this page.  It could stand improvement (on my to-do list), but it's got its multiple reliable independent sources, so it meets the first criterion of the proposal.  (It also verifiably holds a national record -- first nighttime American football game -- and verifiably has national recognition as a registered historic site, so it meets the second criterion of the proposal, twice.) Shimeru 09:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The transformation of this into this, and likely future expansion, shows the dangers of deleting an article because it doesn't *currently* meet all the requirements.  Aritcles are improved piecemill, and we shouldn't demand final finished articles during AFD.  Instead of making an article to meet your standards, you found an article that didn't, and have improved it, so it could.  While that's good, it shows the danger of deleting articles so easily, because it prevents there improvement later on.  Remember, AFDs often occur shortly after an article is made.  We evaluate the draft version, not the final version.  You're improvement of the school article, actually demonstrated the value of keeping articles that fail your standards, and keeping them, so that they can be improved later.  We're a wiki.  That means good articles come from many people, making many modest contributions.  A good article, results from a chain of little contributions.  If we delete the first contribution, we break the chain, and never get to the final result.  You expect *other* editors to make their first draft good-enough, but can't do that yourself.  The time it takes you to make one good article, as an example, would be much less than the time invested by others in articles you removed. --Rob 10:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can do that myself, actually, and these days, I do.  I freely admit that there was a time I was not so worried about providing sources.  This was a mistake, and I know better now.  Many supporters of broad inclusionism make this argument; the problem with it is that the articles are often not improved.  In my current working through :Category:Schools needing cleanup, I've frequently come across articles tagged for cleanup and expansion that have not changed in months, even years.  Often, there is no significant change from the first draft to the current article -- some wikilinking, maybe, the addition of categories or an infobox, but no content changes.  These articles are almost all unsourced, or sourced only by the school or district's website.  It's not infrequent to find one copied and pasted directly from a school website.  We shouldn't demand a finished article the first moment, no.  But we shouldn't let these articles languish for months in the belief that "someone will work on them" when it is obvious that nobody is.  It is not unreasonable to demand sources -- the opposite is enshrined in Wikipedia policy, in fact (WP:V).  We would not accept an article about a band or a company remaining for months in such a sorry condition, and for the same reasons we should not accept an article about a school doing so.  If Wyoming Seminary in its previous form had been nominated for deletion, I would have voted delete -- and then, later, constructed an actual sourced article showing notability.  This is what you're missing:  deletion is not a permanent decision.  It doesn't prevent anyone from writing a new article that meets the standards.  For that matter, deletion isn't even a first resort for this policy, as it is with WP:BIO or WP:CORP -- we suggest a merge and redirect as a compromise with the completionists.  If there are people who want a school to have an article, they should do what we require of people who want any subject to have its own article:  Find the sources, prove its notability, write an article that can stand.  You say that many school articles can be improved?  I fully agree.   and prove your point.  That category I linked would be a good place to start:  hundreds of articles that have been tagged for months. Shimeru 20:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our differences 

message: SCHOOLS3 currently states that school articles not meeting criteria may be merged and should always be redirected. Is this really the policy we want to go with- to always redirect, even when the article's title is poor and the article has little history to speak of? What good would a redirect do in these situations? -- Kicking222 17:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it's one of those compromise things.  If the title is poor, then it should probably be moved to a better title first, then the redirect deleted.  I don't think we need to spell that out, really, just like there's no need to spell out that, if merging is declined, AfD is a possible next step. Shimeru 21:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: a bad redirect is also easily moved to become a good redirect with almost no outcry. And it's also increadibly easy to get redirects, deleted... compared to a school article, anyway.Garrie 05:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Always merge/redirect?

message: Is there any particular reason why the talk page link on Wikipedia:Schools3 links to the discussion page for Wikipedia:Schools?  That's bound to confuse some users. -- Butseriouslyfolks 01:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk Page Link 

message: Unless I am misunderstanding it, I disagree with Note 7.  Isn't it the job of an editor to make the trivial / non-trivial judgment, based on all of the circumstances?  Why is it better to bind ourselves to the source's determination whether something is or is not trivial?  If a matter is only found in one source, but that source treats it like it is the most important, least trivial matter in the world, does that outweigh the fact that no other source even mentions it?  I think an editor has to review and weigh the sources (or lack thereof) to determine whether a matter is trivial in an overall sense.  IMHO. -- Butseriouslyfolks 02:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note 7 - Objective Triviality 

message: It was kind of confusing that there were two twin proposals here. But the other one was rejected, and this one is ongoing. So I've moved the other one to Wikipedia:Schools/Old proposal, and moved this one here, so now all schools-related links point to the active proposal (or guideline, if consensus is reached on that). >Radiant< 15:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twin proposals 

message: Notablity of the Schools and Universities are the same thing??? There is no article named Wikipedia:Notability (universities). NAHID 15:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, basically.  There seems to be a general agreement that educational institutions at the college and university level are broadly notable, so most of the discussion has focused on schools at a lower level. Shimeru 20:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notablity

message: It's positively rediculous to move Joshua's personal proposal (aka Wikipedia:Schools3) to this page.  Just as it was absurd to for A Man In Black's personal essay to start the prior version at this location (along with messing with WP:SCH in the past).  I figure we've had roughly 4 fundamentally different proposals, with each having various critical variations/changes.  It makes much of the talk page discussion in various places, seem meaningless.  There's a reason why Wikipedia keeps the history of project and discussion pages.  We actually do want *useful* history, of discussions.  So, lets not have admins force their *personal* preferred proposal onto this page.  So, for now, I suggest, simply moving this back to  Wikipedia:Schools3, and making this a disambig.  Also, there's no evidence Wikipedia:Schools3 ever had more support than what was recently Wikipedia:Schools (both the recent one, and the one before that).  Therefore, its equally deserving of being tagged as rejected.  Of course, its hard for me to even discuss or explain all this, as I haven't a clue as to how to name/describe each proposal I'm talking about them, as there's a continuous flux of naming/meaning.  --Rob 03:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the number of editors this proposal has had, and the fact that its current state barely even resembles its initial state, it seems in rather bad faith to call it "Joshua's personal proposal" at this point.  Tagging it as rejected without discussion is likewise not in the best of faith; it has never been formally presented.  I would ask that you retract the former comment and refrain from the latter action, and instead concentrate on helping to establish a middle ground that could be, at least, reluctantly agreed upon by most involved parties. Shimeru 09:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the mismash of names, it's pretty much essential to refer to proposals as "Joshua's" or "A Man in Black's", as there's no other standard name.  You're also making the conflicting criticism, that Joshua's proposal has had widespread input (hence it's not to be referred to as "Joshua's") but then you're claiming it's never been fully discussed/debated/considered and I'm too blame for rejecting it before its been widely seen.  In a month or two, somebody  will move their own proposal overtop this one.  When that happen's, the only way anybody will know which proposal we were talking about, will be the personal names.  Also, you do realize Joshua did promote his proposal in the discussion over "A Man In Black's" version of Wikipedia:Schools.  And there was also (for a good amount of time) a merge tag for both.  So, it's absurd to say it wasn't presented formerally.  In any event, given you've rejected my approach of referring to different proposals, I request you develop your own.  Referring to something as "this proposal" is essentially useless, as what "this proposal" is can change any minute.  I do find it humorous how you criticize me adding a  tag, but you didn't complain about the prior (AMIB's) version being so-tagged, and worse, actually hidden (moved to another name, with no link to it).  --Rob 05:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please.  It isn't the "Joshua's" that makes the phrase "Joshua's personal proposal" suspect.  (But then, perhaps it wasn't clear.  For the sake of clarity, it also isn't the "proposal.")  On the other topic, there is a difference, at least in my mind, between a proposal having the input of several editors and a proposal being formally presented.  The current WP:SCHOOLS proposal (and there's the term you requested, incidentally) has never been presented as other than a work in progress, though there was a small amount of discussion about doing so.  It's clear that you personally reject this proposal; it's not clear that the community as a whole does.  I do not particularly see why I should complain about the previous version being tagged; perhaps you could explain your reasoning further. Shimeru 09:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The previous situation was very confusing with two different policies running simultaneously. Now that the changes have been made it makes much more sense to use this present policy as the basis for building a consensus. Then at least all the discussion will be in one place. Dahliarose 11:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing the mess