Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Archive 4

message: 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 , Talk:The King's School, Sydney  and Talk:Presbyterian Ladies' College, Sydney  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 schoolAdam McCormick 06:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment review?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Broader School Category 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  This article has now been assessed. Camaron1 | Chris 16:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Collierville Middle School]]

message: 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)
replies: text: Go ahead, many other projects do it. Camaron1 | Chris 09:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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  format. Camaron1 | Chris 16:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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  for easy reference. Camaron1 | Chris 17:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participants 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination]] 

message: 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.
:# 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.
:# 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.
:# 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Thanks, it was a bit confusing. Camaron1 | Chris 17:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Question for [[Diocesan Boys' School]] Hongkong

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  HS newspapers as sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I see what you mean. Camaron1 | Chris 08:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does this section now need updating? Camaron1 | Chris 13:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Crossover between Wikiproject Schools and Wikiproject Education

message: 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)
replies: text: We would greatly appreciate third-party contributors.  Thanks, Nimur 20:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit dispute at [[Year-round school]]

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  I have effectively re-written it. Please feel free to improve it further. -- zzuuzz(talk) 21:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I just checked and Mr McMain is still head of sixth form 18:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  Thanks for the cleanup! I will assess this article as soon as I can. Camaron1 | Chris 19:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article has now been assessed. Camaron1 | Chris 16:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Woodlands Community School, Derby]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  How to Add a School 

message: Nuclear froggy 18:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  School not tagged 

message: 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)
thread_title: Punahou School

message: 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)
replies: text: Nice article, I will assess this for you as soon as I can. Camaron1 | Chris 10:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now assessed. Camaron1 | Chris 19:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Roseland Christian School]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  speedying of schools 

message: Why is cat schools needing cleanup on the project page?  Miss Mondegreen | Talk   10:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It's already on the CAT page; I removed the WikiProject from the category. WODUP 02:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:WikiProject Schools needing cleanup