Template talk:Schools in Norfolk

This would look much better if you removed all the redundant red links. Dahliarose 23:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dahliarose. Does anyone mind if I take them out? Xn4  07:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * They are not "redundant" redlinks, they are redlinks ot articles that have yet to be created, ie for others to come along and fill in. To remove them would imply that these institutions did not exist. GraemeLeggett 09:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree. After I created the template, I added schools as articles came along, which seems to me a reasonable approach, because (1) this is a navigation box, intended to help in navigating around Wikipedia articles; and (2) articles will only exist here for schools which are notable. All these redlinks seem to take the approach that all comprehensive schools and all special schools in Norfolk are notable, which I don't agree with. Am I misunderstanding something? Xn4  20:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hard to tell whats notable until the article is there...leave the redlink and see if a Dumpling doesn't come along and fill the article in. GraemeLeggett 09:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how we can resolve this here, so I've started a new thread at WikiProject Schools. Xn4  18:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Having started this discussion I thought I'd better reply. We had a similar discussion with the template for Berkshire schools and at the time I did a survey of all the other county templates. The majority only seem to include schools which actually have articles. It's unlikely that articles will be created for all these Norfolk schools. We found with the Berkshire template that people were encouraged to create articles if they wanted their school listed and couldn't have a red link. Dahliarose 00:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Norfolk County School
I intend to contest and revert this deletion. This school was wholly independent of the later Watt's Naval School that used the former site of the original establishment. It was not a renaming of an existing school. The two articles were lumped together in order to avoid having two short articles - not to have the original establishment erased from Wikipedia. Unless I see a very valid reason for not doing this I will contest this to the point of mediation if required. DiverScout (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Contest it then, these are Naviagtion boxes. If we start listing every school by every single name its had then these boxes will be endlessly long- Why not split the articles? Bleaney (talk) 11:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * For pity's sake, this site has become so pathetic. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME SCHOOL.  I cannot state that any more clearly.  As you premise is, therefore, incorrect I ask YOU to stop edit warring on matters that you appear unable to grasp. DiverScout (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why on earth are they on the same article then? They need to be split into 2 different articles then if the institution is completely separate from the other, sharing a site is not enough of a link for them to have the same article. Bleaney (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)