Wikipedia talk:Schools/Archive 11

message: A school is usually assumed to be notable if it has gained national or regional recognition for its curriculum, extracurricular activities, architecture or history.  The following are examples for recognition:
* the school has been recognized with a notable national award, 
* has won a science competition at the national level, 
* its athletic teams hold a nationwide record.
* the buildings used by some English schools have been classified by English Heritage while some American schools are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 
*Schools having significant published histories. Details will be found in one of the online catalogues such as Worldcat or, for UK schools, COPAC; however, by themselves these don't establish notability.
This is no longer a "merger" since Schools is tagged as historic-inactive, and we now have no guideline for schools.  To add text on otherwise uncovered organizations is definitely within the purview of this page.  While some may advocate a separate page that discussion is not mutually exclusive to inclusion here.  --Kevin Murray 20:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The schools group has totally failed to reach consensus after a very full debate, I think that trying to apply these guidelines to schools would indeed cause a consensus--a consensus that the guidelines were not suitable. They are considerably more restrictive than even many of the  deletionist-inclines editors working with  schools would support.DGG 20:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To me this begs the question: are the current guidelines at WP:N and WP:ORG sufficient to cover the need for school related topics?  I say yes, but if we need to compromise toward some specific school criteria, then let them be brief and let them be here. --Kevin Murray 22:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the current proposal is historic, surely it should be preserved at the point where it was judged to be historic, ie, the last version by Radiant. Kevin has subsequently made two further amendments to the so-called historic proposal. Is the proposal historic or is it active again? No wonder we can't reach any consensus when nobody knows which version is being worked on and what the current status quo is. I think it might be better to start from scratch with a completely new proposal. Dahliarose 23:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Not really. If people want to pick up a historical proposal and work on it again, they're welcome to. If edits wouldn't have been welcome, I would have protected the page. >Radiant< 10:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, the main argument that I saw here was quite simply WP:CREEP. WP:N provides a very good test of notability. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 23:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Dahlia, and have reverted to the version tagged historical.  If editing is ongoing, that suggests that an effort to reach consensus is ongoing, and therefore the proposal shouldn't have been rejected yet.  If the rejection was valid, on the other hand, it's the last-discussed text that would be of the most help to someone initiating a new proposal, and modifying it cuts down on the value of preservation, because it could give a false impression of what precisely was rejected. Shimeru 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That generally tends to cause a trainwreck (it's unclear whether old comments refer to the old version or new version, people intending to link to this find they link to something they never intended to, etc., etc.). If you want to start fresh, it's usually best to pick a new name and really make a fresh start (perhaps WP:SCHOOLNOTE)? That also has the advantage that people can look back at the old proposal, and see what type of objections the new one will need to address. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 01:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Radiant that it is best to archive this historic guideline and start afresh. I don't think the content should be blanked. We should then proceed as Smokey Joe has suggested. A notice must be posted on Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. At the same time I think it would be useful to develop a separate page of useful sources for school articles which could be linked from this page. The embryo for such an article already exists with a list of sources for notable alumni on the WikiProject Schools page. I think a problem with a lot of school articles is that people simply don't know where to look for the information they need. Dahliarose 10:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * I disagree about restarting this here so soon, in any fashion; much of the objection was to the mere existence of another guideline, not just the content.  I think that the POV inertia will cause the same text to rapidly re-evolve whether the page is blanked or not, and we will be back to the status of last week.  I suggest that a discussion commence at a sub-page to the Schools project, and/or work at WP:ORG to see whether that can be adapted to handle schools under broader guidelines with several concise special cases. --Kevin Murray 16:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *The fact that there have been so many attempts to start a separate school guideline demonstrates that a need exists. There was no consensus for a merger with WP:ORG and much of the content is irrelevant to schools. This guideline was at a stage of active development when a vote was taken last week and the whole issue was very confusing as nobody knew which version of the guideline was active when they were voting. I'm not sure what Kevin means about COPAC. My intention was merely to point people in the right direction to find suitable sources. The fact that a school has a published history (as evidenced by its inclusion in the Worldcat or COPAC online catalogue) provides a clear indication of its notability and the existence of a reliable source of information to form the basis of an article. We need a very simple guideline to state that there is no consensus that all schools are notable and that notability is determined by [WP:N]], combined with a few examples. Dahliarose 18:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a good place for a new proposal to start, actually:  is there consensus about anything at all, regarding schools?  Judging by the last few efforts, I think we're going to need to determine that first, and then work out the text, rather than propose text and then discuss it. Shimeru 19:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: * Dahliarose, please forgive my mistake in the interprestaion of what you were suggesting in the prior discussion. I have amended my comment above.  --Kevin Murray 20:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposal 

message: Although this guideline failed to reach consensus, there is a reasonable solution under existing precedent. Since all towns and villages, no matter how small are notable, it follows that all School districts are notable, since they are a geo-political area usually larger than a single town, and often incorporating several towns. So in the context of the article about the school district, all of the individual schools, both present and past, are worthy of mention, at least in a list with a short attribution. How much coverage each school gets in the district article is based on how much relevant WP:ATT material is available. If the content for a single school out-grows the school district article, then a separate article is appropriate based on normal split/merge guidelines. Similarly, a short article about a school should be merged into a general article on the school system. So there is no need for a separate guideline. The current policies and guidelines are sufficient. Dhaluza 13:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have partly finished the school district experiment that I described above.  Using most of the readily available data from the National Center for Education Statistics and a limited amount from the Sausalito Marin City School District website, I created the district article, with separate sections for the three schools currently run by the district.  There are many secondary sources that I will use to expand this, including a long analysis from the Hover Institute and dozens of lengthy newspaper reports of school board elections and recalls, covering white flight and such back to the 60s.  This is one of the two or three highest cost districts in California (more than $20,000 per year per student) with the lowest performance in Marin County and the highest percentage of school-age children educated outside of the public school system, so it is as "notable" as anybody could want.  Despite all that, I think that the article could stand as it is quite well.  It's pretty dry right now, but even if it didn't have any of the history I found, it would gradually pick up some local color.--Hjal 17:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *For places where there is no formal districting of schools, they can be covered in the article about the town or geographic region they draw students from, and be split out if the content warrants it. In the U.S. (and Canada), school district boundaries are often separate and distinct from other boundaries like townships and counties, so they are stand-alone geo-political units, making them generally unsuitable for merging under articles about a town. Also, there is so much publicly available source data that they can easily meet WP:ATT by themselves. Dhaluza 09:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This 'historical' guideline does in fact already recommend that "any verifiable information might best be merged and redirected to an article about the locality or school district in which the school resides". As Dhaluza comments, this recommendation seems eminently sensible or do people perhaps have a problem with the word "verifiable". Many UK towns, eg, Bath have a section on education and it seems quite logical to put a brief mention of a school in such a section and only have a separate article if someone is prepared to write a proper article. As far as I can gather the concept of a school district only exists in North America, and I do not feel qualified to comment on whether all American school districts are notable or not. I have noticed, however, that the quality of many of these articles is very poor. For example, Muscatine Community School District was one of the articles which was assessed in the latest batch of assessments. The assessor commented at the time "There are quite a few of these. It's difficult to believe that school districts can ever be more than stubs and low importance".  Is there scope for expansion of such articles? Would it not be best to put the school in the town until a proper school district article is created rather than create yet another layer of stubs? On another point altogether, I've tidied up the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools page so that the article guidelines have more prominence and I've also expanded the sources section. In the process I discovered that there is a dedicated page for the placing of school alumni where a school article doesn't currently exist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/alumni. This seems to be an ideal solution to the alumni problem. Dahliarose 10:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most U.S. States keep large databases on schools and school districts, and this has only increased with the No Child Left Behind Act. So these articles can be expanded by referencing that data. Dhaluza 10:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Please take a look at this AfD, which brought up some good arguments in the school district debate.  I think it is much more useful to merge schools into communities rather than school districts.  People normally associate schools with communities rather than districts.  Icemuon 10:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said above, school districts often have arbitrary boundaries that do not correspond to a single community--often they include all or only parts of several. So they are distinct entities, and often need to be treated separately. Dhaluza 10:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a school article is being considered for a merge it is clearly a small article.  Given this premise it can easily be merged into the the school district AND the community.  In both cases there is a different context and both help one understand more about the school. David D. (Talk) 04:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A follow-up note

message: There has been a few lower school Afd's where the main reason given is that lower schools are inherently not notable and need an assertion of notability.  Has there been any significant discussion that has led to this being broadly accepted? John Vandenberg 08:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there has.  Basically every article needs to assert notability.  After years of discussion a truce seems to have developed on the issue of generally including secondary schools and not including earlier schooling.  Exceptions are made in both cases when notability is clearly missing for secondary schools or clearly presented for the per secondary schools.  This is probably best described as consensus by default.  If you want to see the bloody discussions, they are archived.  Opening this can of worms is not advised. Vegaswikian 18:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair summary or to put it another way elementary/primary schools need a very clear assertion of notability whereas secondary schools generally survive unless notability is totally absent. TerriersFan 17:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary/Elementary schools 

message: What's the consensus on this? Corpx 17:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As with most things regarding schools there is no real consensus. Alumni, by themselves are not sufficient; however, alumni plainly help and add to the multiple sourcing. TerriersFan 17:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alumni giving notability to elementary schools?

message: Alansohn, please explain your action.
*The rejected proposal served no purpose beyond any of the several other archived proposals, and so moving it to a subpage was appropriate.
*People go to WP:SCHOOL looking for a school notability guideline.  It is sensible that they be referred to WP:N.  There is no prospect for a successful new proposal, given the recent discussion at WT:N.
*What do you have against advertising the existence of myschool.wikia.com?
--SmokeyJoe 04:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: With the many failed proposals relegated to subpages, what should remain?

message: Take a look: Wikipedia:WikiProject school consensus resolution. • Lawrence Cohen 07:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New discussion underway - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject school consensus resolution]] 

message: Should a lockdown at a middle school, or a lawsuit or an explosion give a middle school notability to get an article? --Dappl (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A single incident, by itself, would not be sufficient for notability. However, middle schools will usually have other reliable sources. Consequently a combination of the sources on the event put together with other existing sources may be enough. I don't think that it is possible to generalise; as with all things, 'it depends'. TerriersFan (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Given the reasons schools can be locked down for it does not establish notability.  The lock down may not have anything to do with the school, it is simply a fact based on where the school is located in relation to some other incident.  Now if it happens every week or something unique at the school, then maybe. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lockdowns and chemical explosions that made the news give middle schools notability? 

message: This project does not seem to be very active. However, for the sake of form I'm looking at this category which at the time of writing has 584 members, and I propose to merge all those long-standing proposals for UK primary schools, since it seems uncontentious to do so. Anyone objecting will have plenty of time to let me know, because I envisage this taking some months. Rodhullandemu 21:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is watched less than Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools so you may want to post this on that page as well. (Evidence: ,  Camaron ·  Christopher · talk 18:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll copy this over. Rodhullandemu 18:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:School articles to be merged]] 

message: 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 13:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it would be appropriate of me to be a task force co-coordinator at this time, but I would be happy to help out. CT Cooper · talk 12:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Not that many people watch this page, perhaps you should try WT:WPSCH. CT Cooper · talk 15:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Argh, I have hit the wrong page  Night of the Big Wind talk 18:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Perhaps other editors don't agree that a taskforce is necessarily the best way forward. That would explain the lack of response. Fmph (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Night 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. Good luck with the idea, I can't really help as I keep my edits to the right of the pond save on rare occasions. --ClemRutter (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability revisited: proposal for a taskforce: To improve US Highschool articles 

message: Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools#Confusion_about_duplication_of_efforts_and_discussions and respond there please. --Bob Re-born (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion about duplication of efforts and discussions 

message: 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 06:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to try asking this question over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. That page is much more active than this one. Are you sure he's the only notable alum? That seems odd for a school of 2000+ students. ThemFromSpace 06:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I thought this would redirect to the WikiProject page. I will transfer this there.— PCB 06:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Westview High School (San Diego)]] 

message: :File:St. Pius X school crest.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 06:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: File:St. Pius X school crest.jpg

message: See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 May 20 where many of these images are up for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: school bullying suicides related images