Template talk:Infobox school/Archive 1

message: What is wrong with the template on Infobox_School_II is there an error because it is really small.  John R G 00:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:Infobox_School_II

message: Shouldn't the images all be the same size and borderless or whatever.  Right now we simply determine the image page-by-page, but this can lead to chaos.  I propose modifying the page to include the image automatically to whatever size.  However, this will involve modifications to every page linking to it. Nicholasink 04:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true.  In most infoboxs, the "image" parameter contains only the filename. -- Netoholic @ 04:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Default image configuration

message: What is the purpose of the "Prominent Faculty" field?  It seems that very few (high) schools will actually have faculties so notable as to be listed prominently in an infobox.  I suggest we replace "Prominent Faculty" with "Faculty", and use that field instead to list the size of the teaching staff. --BenjaminTsai 06:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been told the term "faculty" is only used in this context in North America.  A more open alternative might be "Teaching staff". -- Netoholic @ 10:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to consider that in many cases this will not be a named member of faculty but the number of faculty.  i would think if there are two faculty members listed it is redundant to say they are prominent.  I removed the word prominent before i saw the talk page here.  See what you think? David D. (Talk) 03:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're using it as the number of faculty on my school's article. Reuvenk 02:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Faculty isn't used by the public in Australia, and seldom by teaching staff. Alex Law 05:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: How about "Vice Principals"? Sstrieu 07:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prominent Faculty

message: Some suggestions:
* Religious affiliation, optional
* Pedagogical approach, also optional - could include special needs approaches (e.g., Greenspan, ABA), educational philosophy (e.g., Montessori, Steiner), etc.
* Accreditation, optional
* Member of network, optional - example could be "Solomon Schechter Day School Association"
* Grade levels, required?
 --Leifern 14:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More custom sections would be appreciated. I'm afraid of changing the template for fear of messing up many pages. Reuvenk 02:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The University template is using some very sophisticated hidden fields.  This might be a way to include more fields with out wrecking the current look for other schools.  See the university template  for more details. David D. (Talk) 02:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed additional fields

message: Manual Arts High School had color swatches for its school colors in some unstructured text (looked like it was a remnant of a table).  When I created its infobox, I moved the swatches into it.  Should this be usual practice?  If so, it seems like it'd be good to have something like  or .  (Actually, Template:Color swatch already exists and does sort of the right thing, but the swatch is way too big for this purpose.)  Better still might be to add parameters to Infobox School to do this, so it can be standardized. Jordan Brown 05:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color swatches 

message: I think there should be a standard field to depict if the school is an all boy/girls or mixed school. 
LeMarsu 09:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this could be added to "Type", so you might end up with "Public, Secondary, Girls". Jordan Brown 16:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gender 

message: I particularly like the fact that the image size is now available as a default.
A couple of notes:
If the "imagesize" parameter is to be of the form "123px", that needs to be clear in the documentation.  "in px" and "width in pixels" both suggest bare numbers to me - "123" instead of "123px".
Is there any reason why "Image:" style links *shouldn't* be acceptable?  If they can be recognized as-is, that would avoid a big pile of cleanup of existing articles.
Jordan Brown 23:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your feedback! In general, I tried to model this infobox's method of calling images after other infobox's, such as that of Template:Infobox Person. Giving an answer in units literally means to give it with those units, and have seen that from everywhere. If it's confusing, I'll change the documentation. It would be ideal to not have a double standard for how to code images, so if the backlog is cleared, the code can be made much, much less confusing. GracenotesT § 13:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Documentation improvement would be good.  Adding something like "e.g. 220px" should be sufficient. Jordan Brown 05:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Since (presumably) the Senior Class President changes every year, it seems like it's too volatile to include and should be removed.  It seems like it would almost always be stale.  Comments? Jordan Brown 22:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, and who the senior class president is isn't important anyway, in most cases. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 20:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at who added it, and it was added in this edit by User:Nduell, who joined Feb 4 and has 26 edits. Not that that really matters, but for now, I'm removing it. If he wants it back we can discuss it. -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 21:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Senior Class President:  too volatile?

message: I'm trying to convert variants like Template:Infobox US school and Template:Infobox School4 to use Template:Infobox School.  I've found one feature in Template:Infobox US school that seems worthwhile but not necessarily a no-brainer:  it can include an image of the mascot down in the body of the box.  (This is in addition to the image at the top of the box, presumably a picture of the facility.)
See examples at Livingston High School (New Jersey), Plano Senior High School, Plano West Senior High School, and Jericho High School.
Any comments on adding a "mascot image" feature to Template:Infobox School?  In-line like Template:Infobox US school does it, or somewhere else?
Jordan Brown 06:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mascot image? 

message: (reset)
User:Centrx doesn't seem to think that the flag is appropriate.  Personally, I like it, but one of the reasons that I designed it the way I did (using the 3-letter-code instead of having the client article provide names, flags, or whatever) was to allow for either option.
Centrx's change was wrong, because it didn't expand the 3-letter code to the name.  I've changed it to do that (so that you get United States instead of USA and Kuwait instead of KWT, as described above, but I'd like to discuss whether or not the flag should be included.  Opinions?
Jordan Brown 20:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The flag does not add any information, the name of the country is already included and that name is usually much better recognized by a reader than a flag; flags are appropriate in situations where there is not enough space to display the country name or where it used as a sort of abbreviation in listings, so that the full name is not listed each time, such as in sports tables. The flag unbalances the infobox, shouting to the reader that the country in which the school is located is somehow more important than every other element in the infobox. If we were to follow the same principle by which the country flag is added, a flag would be added for the nationality of the originator? Why not a flag for the affiliation (e.g. Catholic crosses), why not list the state flag and the flag of the municipality, and a flag for the athletic conference? This quickly becomes ridiculous (see, e.g. ). In addition, the flag is not appropriate for navigation. The convention with images like this on the Web in general is that clicking on the image will bring the reader to the linked article, i.e. the article about country, but instead they are sent to the image page. This is because images are not navigational tools. Wikipedia:Images, WP:MOS#Images, and Wikipedia:Image use policy has some relevant mentions about the use of images. —Centrx→talk • 21:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think that what country the school is in is one of the most important pieces of information about it, but I agree that the flag doesn't convey any critical information.  I rather like emphasizing the international nature of Wikipedia, so I like the flag, but I'm not obsessed about it.  Any other opinions? Jordan Brown 05:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country - flag 

message: One thing that could be done with a standardized "country" value is to automatically add articles to per-country categories, e.g. :Category:Schools in France.  (I'm not enough of a template wizard to be able to do that one immediately, but I could do :Category:Schools in FRA and it's not much of a stretch from there.) Jordan Brown 07:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this would work. There is no :Category:Schools in United States and even if there were, it would be horribly overcrowded. In the United States the categories are broken down by school level: :Category:Elementary schools in the United States, :Category:Middle schools in the United States, and :Category:High schools in the United States. Most of the links on those pages are to the State level categories, which then contain many links to the city/region categories. I think this will have to be left as a manual process for now. – Paschmitts 13:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the thoughts.  I agree this would be problematic.  I suspect that it's probably possible to address, but it would require further parameter refactoring and template cleverness to separate out the type of school and state in a standardized form, and then use that information on US schools.  Probably not worth the effort.  Jordan Brown 16:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country - category 

message: I noticed that if a client article supplied a blank imagesize (perhaps because it started with the "empty syntax" example), the image wouldn't display properly.
The problem was that the imagesize defaulting was being done with the parameter-defaulting mechanism default, and that only triggers when the parameter is undefined, not when it is blank.  I changed it to use a  and now it works OK.
It'd sure be nice if somebody could figure out how to break that block onto multiple lines and indent it to show the structure, to make it more readable.  I'm not enough of a template wizard to do it reliably.
Jordan Brown 17:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blank imagesize caused problems 

message: An admin reverted an edit by User:Jdubman to Mission San Jose High School (dif), which clearly had to be done because of how the logo gif was enlarged and distorted.  It may be that the infobox design is a problem or that the tag needs to be different for jpgs and gifs--I'm not really able to tell what should be done, but it seems like somebody should go look at the other edited infoboxes.--Hjal 05:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that the editor in question didn't understand the imagesize parameter, which is fine, because it's a bit complicated (but less complicated then the image syntax that was there previously). I'll fix it. GracenotesT § 19:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep.  Nyah, nyah, got there first :-)  What I did with the ones I updated was to look at the size of the image, and if it was a graphic (vs a photo) under about 250px then I set imagesize to the actual size.  Few photos were that small, so I didn't really come up with a pattern.  It'd be nice to be able to do some more intelligent tests in the template, but I don't think the template can inspect the actual image size.  (Perhaps if there was a way to tell MediaWiki "scale down to 220px, but do not scale up", but there isn't.)  Perhaps we should have a way to tell the template to use the native image size, whatever it is. Another issue is that graphics (vs photos) tend to be tall rather than wide, and if you scale them up to 220px wide they are unreasonably tall even if they look OK.  Jordan Brown 20:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  images in Template:Infobox School 

message: When you have a photo of the school, a logo, and a picture of the mascot (to take an extreme case), which one should go in the main image field?  Is there any standard for where the others should go?  Check out Haines City High School, which puts a mascot image in the mascot field without any explicit support from the template.  That and Hermann-Böse-Gymnasium, which has a logo in the infobox and a picture of the school in the article, are the articles that prompt me to ask.  Thoughts? Jordan Brown 06:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple images 

message: We're including school phone numbers now?  Are we sure this is wise?  My understanding was that Wikipedia was not a phone directory.  Is there consensus for this addition?  If so, could someone please point me at the discussion? Thanks. --Elonka 20:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Contact information, specifically including phone numbers, has been in since the initial creation of the template.  I'm not enough of a Wikipedia theologian to say for sure whether it's appropriate to include contact information (which, notably, should include both phone numbers and URLs), but I'd draw a distinction between lists of nothing but phone numbers and including a few primary points of contact.  Phone numbers for every classroom would be excessive, but one phone number for the school seems OK. Jordan Brown 23:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm mildly against the phone numbers. Contact information is not encyclopedic in articles, and since infoboxes summarize articles, it shouldn't be in infoboxes. GracenotesT § 21:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So why do we include URLs? (One might say "because you can just click on them", but that seems kind of weak and if you have Skype then you can just click on "callto:" links to telephone numbers.) Jordan Brown 14:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced by your analogy. After all, analogies should be used for explaining things, not proving them. URLs are standard in articles, while phone numbers are not. URLs are useful for their value as a source. They add something to the article. Calling a phone number... well, you might get the lunch menu, but nothing that could be considered a reliable, static, and useful source. GracenotesT § 05:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  I don't think of the link to www.ibm.com at IBM as being a source; I think of it as a contact point or a "for further information" point.  Since it's supplied by the organization described, it's not a reliable source. Anyhow, that's not the reason that I (somewhat weakly) support including contact information.  The reason is quite simple:  if I'm researching some organization, there's a decent chance that I'll want to contact them and so it's useful to have the information handy. Jordan Brown 05:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is that web pages are static; phones aren't. No matter, though... I wonder if anyone else feels the same way, though. GracenotesT § 23:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, website addresses are much more dynamic than phone numbers. At least that has been true for organizations in my experience.  In fact, many organizations change addresses more quickly than phone number.  Is the presence of an address inappropriate? A very nice thing about wikipedia is that you can have website links, phone numbers, addresses and other information that is too changeable to be put in a static, paper encyclopedia. --Jvv62 13:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gracenotes, are you saying that the information that you can retrieve from a web page is more static than the information that you can retrieve from a phone number?  I'd certainly agree with that assertion... but it's only relevant if you regard them as pointers to sources, and not if you regard them both as contact points.  As contact points, I agree with Jvv62 that phone numbers are (sadly) more stable. Jordan Brown 07:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry that you do not like the idea of there being a Contact Number. However, having a direct contact information to the source can be helpful. You're right, it isn't necessary, but it is helpful. Think of it as adding links to an article. It is not necessary to add links to articles, but adding it is extremely helpful to the reader. So there is a win-win situation with adding the Contact Information to the template. Thanks! Gooden 05:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Phone numbers should definitely be excluded. They may be useful, but this information is not generally considered encyclopaedic. Wiki is not a directory after all, so I shall remove this field. Ohconfucius 03:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There does not appear to be a consensus for your position.  One phone number per article would not make any publication a "directory," so the guideline is really not very pertinent.  I request that you change things back to the way they were.--Hjal 04:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phone numbers 

message: I've adjusted the usage examples to include a space after the equals sign on each row, and to correct the first line in each ( {{Infobox School ). --Geniac 15:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spacing

message: , which this template shoudl override, allows for specification of a head title other than president or principal (I'm looking for "director"). Would that be suitable? Paul_012 (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also looking to specify the head title, as The Chinquapin School has "codirectors". jareha (comments) 08:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Custom head of school title? 

message: I've added an hCard microformat to this template; (see WP:UF for background). I've also added a coordinates property; please use , with display=inline,title. Thank you. Andy Mabbett 17:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates, microformat 

message: What's up, on Mainfreight Primary School? There seems to a a stray {{country data in the HTML source code, Andy Mabbett 19:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the rendering issue too, but didn't look into it. However  the article Bairds Mainfreight Primary School does require use of Template:Infobox School, it uses Template:Infobox NZ primary school which I quickly wipped up out of Template:Infobox NZ school because there were fields I wanted such as mission statement and decile rating applicable to New Zealand schools. --Zven 20:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I noticed that this info box is generic enough to probably eliminate the need for Template:Infobox NZ school infoboxes. The reason the bug occured was that the country field value was a wiki link, that is |country=New Zealand (bug) should have been |country=New Zealand (no bug). --Zven 20:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've TfD the New Zealand variant. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug? 

message: I just added a "closed" parameter. Schools that are no longer open may still be of historic importance, so the infobox should fully support these schools. --W.marsh 18:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  closed 

message: I am wondering of the need for the three different titles 'principal', 'head of school', and 'dean'. I am not aware of any school which has more than one of these at any one time - these appear to refer to the same position, so should they not be merged? or should we for good measure add 'headmaster' and 'headmistress' as well ;-). Ohconfucius 03:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology for the head honcho

message: Philip Stevens recently reworked this template to look more like other school templates. I'm not a big fan of the beige (?) color scheme, but besides that, some fields need to be changed back:
* The district and city fields are now placed on the same line, without any punctuation, rather than on separate lines. This is unacceptable because many articles use the district field to indicate, for instance, a diocese (for religious schools). Moeller High School has the line "Sycamore Township, Hamilton County, Ohio Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cincinnati, USA", which makes no sense at all.
* The motto and caption fields are displayed right next to each other, without so much as a space between them, as in St. Xavier High School (Cincinnati), St. John's Northwestern Military Academy, and Christian Brothers College, Cork.
**Extreme examples of this issue are Manchester High School West and Bancroft School, where no motto was specified and the image doesn't display because imagesize wasn't specified.
* The campus size field is displayed outside the table, in the body text, as in St. Xavier High School (Cincinnati) and Allen High School (Allen, Texas).
* If country isn't specified, the location line ends with a comma, as in [ Loveland High School, Ohio].
* country used to accept an ISO country code that it would use to display a flag (using ) and the full country name. Now articles such as Loveland High School, Ohio have "USA" in them, which looks strange, since (at least in my experience) no one in the U.S. uses "USA" in writing. A more egregious example is United World College of South East Asia, in Singapore ("SIN").
*Since the new design uses a larger font size than the previous one, the infobox now takes up a lot more room (especially for boxes with more parameters specified), in some cases messing with other floated elements. The 80% font size looked a bit tidier anyhow.
* Without imagesize, specified, the image doesn't display at all; instead, the image name is displayed in plain text, as in Elgin Academy (Elgin, Illinois), Pasadena City College, St. Edward's College, Cincinnati Country Day School, and The Mother's International School.
* The patron field's label should read "Patron saint(s)", not "Patron Saints".
*The location field seems to get tripped up on pages like Ygnacio Valley High School and Southridge High School (Kennewick) that aren't completely filled in. Using something along the lines of  should fix that problem.
 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 04:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The merging looks pretty good. I haven't gotten around to redirecting the other templates yet, however, my one suggestion for this template is to make it look more like Template:Infobox Officeholder. I agree with mxn that the beige color is rather odd; also "infobox" has always looked better to me than "infobox bordered". Philip Stevens, you're doing great work. --MZMcBride 04:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous design looked much like Infobox Officeholder, in fact. I agree that the plethora of school templates needed to be merged, but some testing (using Special:ExpandTemplates) would have prevented the various issues I'm seeing. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 04:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed most of the issues, I was aware of the imagesize problem before and I don't think there is a way round it, other then adding that field to every page. How is the template looking now? --Philip Stevens 06:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The imagesize problem is very widespread: about 30% of the articles that use this template don't specify an image width, probably because school logos don't tend to be that big, so they weren't necessary before. This shouldn't be a difficult problem to fix; I'll have a look. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 06:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well done with that code Minh, I'm very impressed. Is there anything else that needs fixing before the other infoboxes are redirected here? --Philip Stevens 14:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *The problem has been fixed (I think). --Philip Stevens 08:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks OK on GHHS.  Thanks. Jordan Brown 03:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Nevermind, I found that I was incorrectly using the syntax within the template. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 01:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philip Stevens' edit 

message: Can someone please look into why the street address is all on one line? The City, State, and Zip Code should all be on a separate line, but they all seem to flow together. This was not a problem with the Education in the United States infobox. I have tried to fix it, but I have not had any luck. I think it is important to get this resolved as it is affecting all templates that redirect to this one. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 06:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addresses all on one line 

message: I've encountered many infoboxes on Wikipedia and this is wider than most.  Has anyone suggest sizing it down just a step?  IrishLass0128 15:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Width 

message: Oh goodness, this required me getting my hands dirty. I've updated the code to fix a couple of issues. The caption and motto fields have been modified, unused code has been removed, and the street address should now be on its own line. There were a lot of other small updates as well.
A template sandbox and testcases now exist for testing new code. Please use them before committing any code updates. If you find any issues with the code I've just added, please leave a comment below or on my talk page. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it possible to alter the code so that the comma after the zip code only appears if the country is specified? Also, it seems a little unnecessary to have a  appear when the country is specified; looks a bit cluttered to me. - auburnpilot talk 14:56, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put the country field on its own line. While I generally don't like little flags, because this template is used internationally (i.e., for schools around the globe), I think they work well here. If you really don't like them, set country = United States rather than country = United States and the flag will no longer appear. If you notice any other issues, please let me know. Also, if changes don't appear immediately, you'll probably need to purge the page. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. So long as there is a workaround for the flag, I have no issue with it staying. In fact, now that the country is on a separate line, I kind of like the flag. Thanks for the quick reply. - auburnpilot talk 23:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks so much. I think that it looks better now with the country on a separate line. I have no problem with the flags, and I think they can stay. Thanks for all the modifications. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Contribs) 03:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large update 

message: Regarding your (User:MZMcBride) revert, why can't it be a bordered layout, like the way it was/is in Template:Infobox Education in Canada? It looks a lot cleaner visually in my opinion. Epson291 (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See . It makes it much easier for people with disabilities; it's also becoming rather common throughout the project as whole. As such, there really should be a reason not to use it, in my opinion. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox Bordered Vcard

message: Why is Enrollment so far down the template? Way after PTR & SAT scores. I see SAT scores are frequently "changed". Is there a place to add a citation for these? --JimWae (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enrollment 

message: There are two ways of spelling enrolment, and so two ways for a user of this template to use it. I added the alternate spelling, there seem to have been a few reverts done either way. The end users of the template don't understand there are two ways of spelling it, and people correct spelling in the articles using the template and break it. As a result the uses of the template have  in the infobox instead.
I don't see why there is an issue with it appearing twice, other than making the template code look less nice, and end users don't see that. I have re-added it - any other thoughts? Wongm (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I mistakenly reverted Zelda - in fact you'll find that enrollment is there twice (pre-Zelda) and enrolment once - so Zelda has just (correctly) removed the repetition. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See eg Sacred Heart Cathedral Preparatory which has 2 duplicate enrollment rows pre-Zelda. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: [smacks head on desk] - now I see, at present there are 3 instances of the double "l" version. Now fixed. Wongm (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am relieved to find I was not alone in misunderstanding Zelda's edit. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling Enrolment 

message: As noted in the talk archives, use of the term faculty to refer to the number of teachers is restricted to American English usage. The term "teaching staff" would probably be preferable. Paul_012 (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Paul_012 (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faculty field 

message: This template is still quite a mess, which is understandable, given the merging of so many different templates. The usage docs, however, should tell the user which are the currently preferred parameters, not include most possible fields. Even if redundancy is needed to maintain functionality, I think there should be standards as to which parameters are deprecated and only kept to allow use on older articles.
Is it at all possible to find out which parameters are still being used? Some seem so specialized that they are likely used in only a handful of articles, and existing custom fields would serve their purpose better. Paul_012 (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overload of parameters 

message: Someone messed up the template at "enrollment" to "enrollment_as_of".  I've fixed the issue, but if someone wants to revert something else, please do the revert manually or manually incorporate my fix in the subsequent version.--Bark (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This now makes "Enrollment as of" appear as a separate line, not something originally intended, I think. - Paul_012 (talk) 08:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I got that fixed.  Does anyone see any bugs with what I've done?--Bark (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it's still a problem as of today, articles are double spacing the "Enrollment" title .  When I tried to fix it while keeping the inline enrollment_as_of some articles would format it correctly while others would not with no apparent pattern. – Zedla (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I ran into an issue with the page cache.  Try accessing the pages using "http://" + "en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=<article_name_with_underscores_for_spaces>&action=purge" and see what happens.  (I seperated the text to defeat autolinking.)  --Bark (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed an issue where "Students" was in a second column.  "Enrollment" will only take one row block if enrollment_as_of is only one year, but if people do two, like 2007-2008, "Enrollment" will take two rows blocks.--Bark (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: It's better but not perfect, the title row still looks like a 1.5 spacing. – Zedla (talk) 09:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm beginning to think the 1.5 spacing is a result of two variables being included on a single line, but I can't find any other examples to compare.--Bark (talk) 13:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "enrollment" to "enrollment_as_of" 

message: Why have both. Their the same thing. One should go. Same thing with Students, Pupils, Enrolment, and Enrollment. --Crash Underride 21:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They're mainly there because this template was merged from ten different templates which used different parameters, and are required for backward support. I agree, though, that redundant fields should be removed from the template docs. (See #Overload of Parameters above.) - Paul_012 (talk) 23:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicates. 

message: WTF? No explanation. Nothin'. EXPLAIN IT!!! --Crash Underride 22:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  communities 

message: One of the fields, "classses" is misspelled.  I don't want to fix it myself, because I don't know if that would break anything.  Could someone who knows the ins and outs of Wiki templates please fix this, and either deal with any fallout directly or let me (and anyone else interested) know what, if anything, needs to be done to deal with said fallout. - Dave314159 (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  The misspelling wasn't in the template itself, just in the empty syntax section.  There shouldn't be any problems.--Bark (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misspelling 

message: On the box I'm currently working, school_colors did not display, but colors, colours, and school_colours did.
--WikiTraveller (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  School Colors 

message: It appears that most other infoboxes use bolded labels, including some templates inside the School project. Should we bold the ones on the generic infobox (this one)? -LelandRB (Chat · contribs) 03:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold Labels?