Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Archive 27

The advice page
I've overhauled WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines (which should really move to /Article_advice, since it's not a WP:GUIDELINE): I don't do these overhauls too often (it's a lot of work), but I like to move WP:PROJPAGE essays like this closer to guideline-worthy material so they can eventually be promoted. That doesn't happen too often, but I've gotten it done or helped it get done a few times.
 * Rearranged better sectionally, to group content, notability, and style advice into three sections with the proper categorization headers on them.
 * Put it all in a single MOS:ENGVAR (British, since that's what already dominated).
 * Fixed lots of typos and such
 * Added a boatload of wikilinks to policies, guidelines, and key essays
 * Updated the advice to agree with current policy, guidelines, and practices; looked like this had not been substantially revised in years.
 * Added various bits of missing advice.
 * Made some of the headings make more sense for their content.
 * Fixed formatting errors (bad list markup, HTML that's not been valid since the 1990s, etc.)
 * Moved the "coordinators" stuff to Template:WPSchools help header, where it actually pertains (though I don't know if the names given in it are current)
 * Added various examples.
 * Misc. copyediting for clarity.

I think this one would need some pruning of WP:CREEP and of redundancy with general WP:P&G material (more cross-references, less exposition), but it's in better shape than I expected. (Some wikiproject advice pages are way out in left field, and a lot of them have barely been touched since the 2000s, and/or only represent the input of 2–5 people, some of who were intending to defy P&G rather than explain how to apply it to their topic. The notability material in particular is better than average, and I'm pleasantly shocked at the lack of any "Death to the MoS! We demand all kinds of Weird Capitalization Just Because We Like It" nonsense. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work but you already moved this to /Article advice and made bold changes without any discussion taking place. You have not given time for any interested editors to comment on this. Discussion is continued at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article advice/Archive 4 Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NODEADLINE; there's plenty of time right now. Mass-reverting because you didn't give your permission first isn't constructive.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course there's plenty of time but you rushed things by making one huge edit without discussion and not giving time for interested editors to comment, that isn't constructive. Where are you getting "permission" from? No one owns anything... Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Lakeview Academy
Additional editors are invited to watch. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 03:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

A discussion of interest to this project
There's a content dispute that may be of interest to this project at Talk:Middleton High School (Middleton, Wisconsin). Your participation is welcomed. John from Idegon (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject:Higher Education
WP:Universities has now moved to WP:Higher Education and I have started a conversation on what follow up work is needed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Higher_Education. Contributions welcome. TSventon (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC) duplicated BY --ClemRutter (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Japanese Wikipedia displays school article guidelines upon editing a school article
When editing on the Japanese Wikipedia I found it displays school article guidelines upon editing a school article. We need to set that up ASAP if we don't already have that. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Scarborough College
Would some others mind taking a look at Scarborough College? Quite a bit of unsourced content was just added by a new account and some of it might fall under WP:NOTEVERYTHING. There are formatting errors like MOS:SECTIONCAPS, etc. which can be cleaned up fairly easily, but it’s the unsourced OR-type content which needs a closer look. There might also be some good-faith COI editing going on, but I don’t think it’s necessary to come down like a ton of bricks on this particular editor just yet for that reason since they do seem to be making an effort to explain their edits. I don’t know anything about English boarding schools, and maybe they don’t even fall within the scope of this WikiProject. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

High schools and disambig pages
Hi! Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation which is a discussion on how disambiguation pages should refer to high schools. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Extreme Low Quality Articles
Apologies if this isn't the place to address this issue - I thought it might be since the articles in question are a part of the school project, but the lack of talk on this page makes me question it, lol. Anyway, I wanted to bring up an issue I've noticed on high school's pages, which is extremely poorly organized information, to the point of illegibility. An example thereof is the Columbia-Montour Area Vocational-Technical School. The text, especially under Academic Achievement, is repetitive, would work much better in a table, and seems bot-generated. I've taken to manually fixing such pages (see Millville Area Junior Senior High School and Benton Middle-Senior High School, but I would need help doing this across Wikipedia, as each such page takes ~1-2 hours. In addition, I'm concerned that whatever bot which was initially responsible for these articles will just end up making them illegible again. So I guess my end point is: if there is indeed a bot, is there a way of changing its info output to tables, and if not, can we disable it? In either event, is it possible to make revamping these articles a priority of WikiProject Schools? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keshiik (talk • contribs) 02:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is an opportunity to find clearer ways to share basic performance information. Within the US, each state has its own assessment system, so US school articles might need a state-by-state effort. For Texas schools, I feel like I've settled into a good format for a "Students" section with basic Academic & Demographic information (see Lipan Independent School District). I keep two main goals in mind: prune the assessment results down to the single easiest-to-understand passing standard for the most recent year, and provide region or state averages as a reference point for readers to understand the school's performance. What I'm doing could almost certainly be automated; all the data points come from a report the state publishes for each school and school system. --Hebisddave (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am glad to see the debate is starting. I looked at the example articles and as someone who has spent my life in education I could understand a word! So just a few points- remember most of your target audience will not even understand the US school governance system- or more so the appraisal system so probably a lot of work will be needed on subsidary articles that you can wikilink to. The heavy use of abbreviations without previous mention is a barrier. We have WP:WPSCH/AG to explain what to leave out of an article! I suggest that culling some of that stuff would be a starting point. IMHO, The prose should be readable and hold a readers interest. Tables are tables- I like stats, but that is not a general Wikipedia opinion. A lot can go, if they leave the reader with a reference that will take them to a reliable source (government source). We do have a system for assessing the quality of an article- please use it. There is no way that the Columbia-Montour Area Vocational-Technical School is other than a very long start class article. Similarly your improved Lipan Independent School District article is no way still a stub. I am involved at the moment with other non-school orientated editors on The Great Britain and Ireland Destubathon and finding most schools articles are so badly referenced that they remain stubs or have been really improved and the stub-tag on the talk page has been left. We are talking of doing a Debloatathon next. There is not a lot that committed editors within the WP:WPSCHOOLS can do to help here as they are already overstretched. ClemRutter (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

It'll be necessary to to an article notice at the top explaining the guidelines for school articles when a person is editing. Otherwise the casual reader will not know, and will be surprised if/when his or her changes get reverted. I think the Japanese Wikipedia is actually doing something like this. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

RE: Lists of schools in Roman Catholic Archdiocese articles
Hi, WP:Schools participants! There is a discussion over how Roman Catholic archdiocese articles should handle lists of schools. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 00:38, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Lists of schools of U.S. Catholic archdioceses
Hi! Please see the deletion discussion regarding Articles for deletion/List of schools of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago which may affect lists of schools of Catholic dioceses in the U.S.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Opinion poll
I saw on this morning's school article change report that Columbine High School massacre was up for WP:GAN. I have no opinion on that; it's simply the genesis of the following question:

Should articles about crimes in schools be under our project?

I'm not going to offer an opinion up front and this is just a poll, not an RfC. Your reasoning is far more relevant than a !vote. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 11:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * looking at it with WP:SCHools eyes, this article doesn't gets to 'start' class: it doesn't even explain what a high school is. Our article Columbine High School tells us far more. I looked in section called background- for details of the school design, the number of pupils on site. I looked for a discussion of changes in education law and school design and zilch, This is not a schools article- and if it were it needs to be rewritten. I think we can use a theatre analogy- The play Macbeth, happens in a theatre- it does not mean that it belongs in a Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City/Theatre (maybe not the best example). ClemRutter (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm interested in the project, but not interested in articles like the massacre. It draws a different batch of editors, who are interested in the burning topics of the day. There is no shortage of editors who will work on that type of article, relatively few who will work on a black school that was closed when they integrated. I wouldn't have a meaningful impact at the massacre, but maybe I will on the school article. So I would vote no.Jacona (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of alumni of Jesuit educational institutions
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of alumni of Jesuit educational institutions. Elizium23 (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for Comment about descriptions of reputation in the ledes of articles about colleges and universities
A Request for Comments has been opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education asking the following question: How should the ledes of articles about colleges and universities describe the general reputation, prestige, or relative ranking(s) of the institution? Your participation and input would be greatly appreciated! ElKevbo (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. I can only talk about UK schools where prestigious seems to be a euphemism for private. Comparisons are endemic. A quick delete with a comment. 'POV- not discussed in main text' seems to do the trick. That is probably what your 'P3' option is saying, I think we have enough tools to do the job. All schools have current Ofsted rating, and mentioning that can be useful-but only if the judgment has a date. --ClemRutter (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Grammatical mistake
Please read sentence 2 present in the section 'Project goals'. I think there is a grammatical mistake present. Adithyak1997 (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Adithyak1997 I have added "of" to sentence 2, I hope that corrected the mistake. TSventon (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for correcting it. Adithyak1997 (talk) 05:13, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Class size parameter in Template:Infobox School
I am finding the "average_class_size" of this template to suffer from ambiguity. Some people believe it means the average number of people per grade at the school (Archbold High School) and others believe it means the average instructional class size (Ashland High School (Ohio)). I believe the latter is correct. But, the template instructions are ambiguous. I think this should be clarified. Thoughts? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ashland has the right interpretation. Archibold seems to be talking about the cohort. Looking at Infobox School the documentation, I see a series of parameters grade 1 -->grade 13 where the numbers of students enrolled in each grade should/could be entered. However if you wish to get a custom field- you use the combination of   (but most readers can divide by 4 and get a closer answer).  have you anything to add. --ClemRutter (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My interpretation of the average class size is the average number of students enrolled for every academic instruction period. In other words, total enrollment divided by the number of individual class sections offered daily. Ratio and average class size are very similar concepts and what parameter to use has to be based on which stat the central educational database for that country records. If it records both, use both. If it records neither or doesn't exist, I'd say establish a local consensus on what source to use or don't use either. In no case would I recommend calculating it. On US high school articles, average class size should be removed as NCES doesn't record it. Clem can speak better to British practices and maybe on Canada. John from Idegon (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

With no further discussion or objections, I've made the change to the documentation. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Southwest Georgia Academy
Please consider adding to your watchlists. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 17:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Herriman High School
There is a discussion taking place, linked in the section title, that may be of interest to editors in this project. John from Idegon (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

AfD Tyrone Scott Freedom School
Articles_for_deletion/Tyree_Scott_Freedom_School has been relisted twice. Editors are invited to resopond. Cheers! — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:International Baccalaureate
A discussion of how we should cover the IB program and how it handled  issuing marks without any final exams this year, for anyone interested in contributing Meters (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Describing schools for people with special needs as "special schools"
Do any of you have any thoughts on Zoe1013's latest edits, shoehorning a link to "special schools" into the opening sentence of articles about schools for people with special needs? I'm about to mass-revert them all, as I believe they strongly disrupt the flow of the articles in question. I'll write a message on her talk page soon. Graham 87 15:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yes you should mass revert. The edits just sound really odd. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've gone and done the mass-revert ... I notice you've helped out as well .. thanks for that. I've kept those that didn't change the meaning of the original sentence like this edit to Stephen Gaynor School].
 * Her new article separate classroom might need attention as well. I think it's OK but very short, but perhaps it could be merged somewhere. Graham 87 15:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I can't find a place to merge it, but I'll try looking around a bit more. In the meantime, I've marked it as patrolled since it seems fairly legitimate. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually thought this was a helpful addition to the articles. Would it be better in school type in the infobox instead, or do you not think it adds anything at all? Tacyarg (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I personally oppose the change because it's awkwardly phrased. In general though, an editor should obtain consensus before making potentially controversial mass changes to articles, which is why a revert was appropriate here. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks, that's helpful. Tacyarg (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I had to undo another batch of her school categorization additions too. Meters (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The Heritage School (Newnan, Georgia)
Please consider reviewing The Heritage School (Newnan, Georgia). Thanks Jacona (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

New article for The Studio School Liverpool
Hi, I'm a relatively new Wikipedia contributor and have been writing a draft for The Studio School Liverpool (draft here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Studio_School_Liverpool) and was wondering if this WikiProject would like to be involved and maintain the article in the future as it is with many other schools in liverpool. I've also asked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Merseyside as they also are involved with most school articles.

Apologies if this isn't the right way to go about this - DannyDouble (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, welcome to WikiProject Schools. I've restored your text here, this is the right place to ask — this school is part of the schools project. I can see it has been accepted to mainspace, I'll take a look at it and do any necessary cleanup. I recommend you to have a read of the school article guidelines which describes how the content of school articles should be organized, with the aim of providing general guidance to editors — it will certainly help you if you wish to expand this. Hope this helps, Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Naming Conventions
Hey, is this project still active? Ages ago, there was a guideline wherein if a school needed disambiguation and it was named after the city in which it was in, the dab was just the state name. But if the school wasn't named after the city, the dab included the city name. So for example Ashland High School (Oregon) vs. Hidden Valley High School (Grants Pass, Oregon). These have all been changed, it appears, (I didn't look at all of them in List of high schools in Oregon) to just the state without discussion. At least the edit summaries don't give any clues. Can someone direct me to the naming convention change? Although I once maintained those articles, I would be OK with all the page moves if the page movers had done the followup clean up. I guess I'm curious if it was done because nobody realized there was once originally a reason for it. Valfontis (talk) 08:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I ran across a discussion here Talk:Roosevelt High School (Oregon), for which I had been pinged, so I guess I could have weighed in at the time. Mostly I agree keeping things simple is better, because maintaining things using obscure guidelines that might have existed once that are only in one person's head is silly, especially when that person goes away. I'm still grumpy better cleanup wasn't done though. I know redirects don't hurt anything but it's lazy editing. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes this project is still active. Well just like John mentioned as the top of that discussion, if that is the only school of that name in that state, then disambiguation should be by state only. But if there is more than one of the same name, then city, state would be the correct disambiguation. Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's really easy to understand, but that's not how it used to be over 10 years ago. I was just curious how we had arrived there. I was looking for a link to any discussions and wondering if this was made a guideline in a MOS anywhere. As I recall the WP:SCHOOLS stuff was all just suggestions. Cheers, Valfontis (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey and Steven! I agree about scoping it, state if it's the only one, city+state otherwise, though I've been more based on the naive/intuitive feel than a precise rule. I think it's good form to do "ashland hs (oregon)" instead of "ashland hs (ashland, oregon)" unless strictly necessary. Are you bothered about the (lack of) cleanup or the (lack of) a precise rule with rationale? I do think this is a good issue to discuss, there's enough of us to care and to clean things up. tedder (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey! I believe it was always this way. If Ashland High School was in Ashland, Oregon but there was also an Ashland High School in another state, then it was dabbed as Ashland High School (Oregon) but if there was, say, a Foo High School in Ashland, Oregon, and there was another Foo High School, in say, Battleboro, Vermont, then you would name the city *and* the state in the dab. For context. Because there is no such place as Foo, Oregon or Foo, Vermont. And I am too lazy to look up the old suggested guideline but I swear I didn't make it up in my head. But like I said, I'm cool with the new simplicity, I was merely curious and yeah, grumpy better clean up was not done. If we're going to do it that way, commit! And get rid of the redirects, because redirects are to help people who stumble across things using search terms and if the redirects are based on some internal Wikipedian logic (mine) that no longer exists, then just go with direct links. Valfontis (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee Academy
Editors are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Robert E. Lee Academy — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 02:54, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Armorial
I am drafting an armorial page for schools in the United Kingdom. It will take a lot of work to list all of them. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What a beautiful page. Yes it will be a big task- as part of an attempt to destub all secondary school articles I have been adding logos to each article Special:ListFiles/ClemRutter most of which won't interest you, but a few are heraldric. Would you consider Manchester Grammar School and all the King's schools viz King's School, Macclesfield, to be within the definition. --ClemRutter (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

New Richmond High School
New Richmond High School looks like it needs some work and is a bit outside my skills. Can anyone else have a go? Sourcing is minimal and there is a lengthy section headed "Financial Crisis" which needs updating. I have just reverted some recent edits which were unsourced but which suggest that the linked elementary school has closed. Thanks, Tacyarg (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Mapframe maps has arrived for Infobox school
Hello all, mapframe maps functionality has finally arrived for Infobox school. At present, the infobox uses pushpin maps which are image-based maps (I find they don't look visually appealing and inconsistent with them being different sizes). Mapframe maps is different as they are interactive maps with additional features that look really nice. Some editors already add mapframe manually to the infobox via the module parameter, however this is mainly for embedding other infoboxes such as Infobox NRHP or historic site. Please join the discussion to help shape its implementation and develop consensus before it is fully implemented. Thanks😃 Steven (Editor) (talk) 04:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added a new implementation and removal of pushpin maps proposal — please comment in the discussion if you're interested. Thanks, Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Clementi Secondary School, Hong Kong
Article is very poorly translated and does not have much detail at all. Made some edits removing mistranslations, but if it's possible please try and fix those. Original appears to have been in Chinese. Hong Kong article, if anyone has knowledge of the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randyratrhombus (talk • contribs) 15:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I can take a look! WhisperToMe (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Which parts do you feel are not well-translated? I took a look but so far am not sure which segments that have problems WhisperToMe (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Question on whether to have "Middle schools in the United States by county" and "Elementary schools in the United States by county" categories
In Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_3 I posed a question on whether to have categories for "Middle schools in the United States by county" and "Elementary schools in the United States by county".

I suggested those categories as mainly feeders for K-12 private schools in urban counties. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note to participants of this WikiProject: WhisperToMe opened a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 3 because the category had been deleted in 2015.  I was pinged.  I didn't think "oh wait this is from 2015" and continued the discussion.


 * Note: To prevent the conversation from continuing on the talk page of a 5 year old archive, I archived the discussion itself.


 * Anyhow, this WikiProject is probably the best place to get a consensus about whether Category:Middle schools in the United States by county should be re-created. The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 3.  The closing summary says The result of the discussion was: delete. (Category has remained empty.).  Courtesy pings:  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  01:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I can see you have been creating lots of categories, categories are good but there is a problem of overcategorizing. For example, you created Category:Private K-12 schools in Los Angeles County, California but what's wrong with Category:Private K-12 schools in California? I think we need to keep things simple and I prefer the original structure of categorizing by state Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * California is a huge state and there are a lot of private schools in Los Angeles County (the San Francisco area may be more fragmented ). I believe the minimum # of articles for a viable category should be five. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No, we don't need either of those categories. Very few elementary or middle schools are notable, and thus we have very few such articles. There is no need to categorize them by counties. Meters (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say there are very few elementary-only, middle-only, or K-8 only ones, but there are quite a few K-12s. Should it directly go from Schools in Foo to K-12 Schools in Foo? There are also a lot of 6-12 or 7-12 schools. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why not just include all of those in the respective high school category and be done with it? Meters (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Part of the reason I made K-12 categories is because I saw multiple K-12s have all three "elementary schools of foo" "middle schools of foo" and "high schools of foo" and I wanted to combine those in single categories due to the overlap (as it's extremely common for there to be K-12 private schools and rural K-12 schools). Since K-8 schools is a distinct topic I made distinct categories for those too. If there's consensus to limit "elementary schools of" and "middle schools of" to the state levels though I'd be OK with that. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The K–12 categories are good because it prevents the need to add "Category:Public/Private elementary schools in [state]", "Category:Public/Private middle schools in [state]" and "Category:Public/Private high schools in [state]" — K–12 would be subcategories of each one of these. I support categorising by state Steven (Editor) (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would not oppose recreation of the category, as long as it is properly populated. Are you willing to work on relevant articles? Dimadick (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to write articles about more NRHP schools, which are often elementary schools (I wrote two in Hawaii) or K-8 schools. For an example of where it can lead: Category:Middle schools in the United States by county -> Category:Middle schools in Harris County, Texas -> Category:K-12 schools in Harris County, Texas -> Category:Private K-12 schools in Harris County, Texas which has 15 articles and a subcategory ("Private K-12 schools in Houston"). The counties which it would include are Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, Cook (Chicago), Harris (Houston), Los Angeles, etc. - essentially major metropolitan counties with many private K-12 schools. Also Category:Public K-8 schools in Philadelphia would be a good ultimate destination too, as Philadelphia is a "county" and these K-8s are on the NRHP. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't see this as a massively important issue of principle, I hadn't considered it before but Wikipedia is at its best when it is 'permissive'. Wikipedia is at its most irritating when it trys to apply a draconian global solution to situations that are really local issues. Personally I find over-classification a pain- and limiting.
 * Elsewhere, we have been running a destubathon. I set my self a goal of destubbing every school article in an English county, I asked wikimate/guru to run me a list of all the articles in that county category, that were stub class.(Challenge:Would anyone like to do the same for Category:Private K-12 schools in Los Angeles County, California or Category:Private K-12 schools in California?) The quickest solution still seems to be to go to the category, copy the items into an external text editor, to construct a text file list where I can change Foo high school into Talk:Foo high school, then individually read each of the pages to find the  {{WPSchools|class=Stub|importance=low  tag.)
 * The individual user should have the power to do this themself, easily. I can't see small categories as making this easier or being helpful- but think 'permissive'. ClemRutter (talk) 08:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering if the MediaWiki software could allow a tweak where a user could choose to view all of the content within a category (including daughter categories) at the same time with a click of a button that could allow users to control how they view categories. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Update: to try to increase the # of schools that would go into these potential categories I'm going through NRHP lists to try to find notable school buildings. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , {{U|Meters}}, {{U|ClemRutter}} what's the consensus here by the way? I don't really see the need to categorise by county, the state ones will suffice and there is also the basic Category:Schools in County, State which will suffice here and can encompass them all Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * {{re|Steven (Editor) }} I have not changed my view as stated above: {{tq|Very few elementary or middle schools are notable, and thus we have very few such articles. There is no need to categorize them by counties.}} Meters (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * {{re|WhisperToMe}} Be careful, school buildings that are no longer being used as schools probably don't belong in these categories. Even if they are being used as schools, if the article is about the building, not the school-as-a-school, they don't belong in these categories.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  00:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * {{re|davidwr}} Would that mean that schools that close have to be removed from the categories? Personally I distinguish between pre-internet (generally pre-1996) and post-internet (post-1996) institutions as it's much easier to find information on the latter. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * {{re|davidwr}} As a general rule, I go with what the article is about. If the article is about the school as an institution, I treat it accordingly even if there is a small amount of information about the building.  If it is about a building, I treat it accordingly, even if there is a small amount of information about the institution that is or was inside its walls.  If it's got a good mix of both, then I treat it as both when it comes to categories.  There's a grey area in my mind between "clearly about this even if it mentions the other" and "clearly about both".  In those cases, just use your best judgement.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  01:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood! In several cases I found articles about the building/notable because of the building and added additional information and history about the school institution, making the article about both. Several of the Philadelphia K-8s (notable because of NRHP status) were covered in the Philadelphia Inquirer and other Philly papers, so I used info from those to expand the articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

County and U.S. schools

 * ,, , : I've moved the discussion here per above. Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

The U.S. example on the school infobox template page does not include county. There have been multiple prior discussions concerning whether or not to add county to the infobox for U.S. schools on the template talk page. By my reading the consensus is don't include county for U.S. schools unless there is some reason to make an exception. Other may have a different take. There was a suggestion in Archive 2 to list the county of U.S. schools separate from the address. In any case there are no specific instructions covering this on the template page.

The school article advice regarding infobox content says to "Provide the basic details about the school, include a street address, and the name of the county (UK, US), state/province (Australia, Canada, India, US, etc.),..."

It's not helpful that the school article advice seems to conflict with the template page. Perhaps further discussion can result in a consensus that is reflected in the template instructions and not in conflict with school article advice.

Prior discussions (search for county):
 * Template talk:Infobox school/Archive 2
 * Template talk:Infobox school/Archive 3
 * Template talk:Infobox school/Archive 4
 * Template talk:Infobox school/Archive 6

pinging editors I remember previously interacting with related to this issue: ,, , Gab4gab (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The U.S. example doesn't include fields for accreditation or for athletics_conference, and it would be idiotic to claim that an editor should start an edit war to impose their argument that parameters for accreditation or for athletics_conference are forbidden for U.S. schools because those fields aren't in the U.S. example. I often don't include fields for motto or former_name, and I'm not violating policy because I haven't filled those in so I can match the U.S. example. It's not helpful (and it's often disruptive) that folks who spend their time here in essay-land too often forget that an example is just an example and and an essay is just an essay, no more and no less, but then go off imposing their arbitrary misrepresentations of what they think these things must mean in order to ram through their will. Alansohn (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This discussion is about whether US schools should use county in its address or not. Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , the exclusion of county from the sample is the only argument that's ever been offered. The field has been populated for a decade or more, as in this edit. If, as you have stated, "we have editors including me who are removing county", you are violating a rather clear consensus at school article advice regarding infobox content that says that we should "Provide the basic details about the school, include a street address, and the name of the county (UK, US)" and this persistent edit warring is contrary to policy. Alansohn (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , like said: "further discussion can result in a consensus that is reflected in the template instructions and not in conflict with school article advice" and that is what this discussion is for — to establish consensus and resolve the problem of whether county should be included in the infobox or not. Steven (Editor) (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , so you and Gab4gab have been removing the county against consensus because "further discussion can result in a consensus that is reflected in the template instructions and not in conflict with school article advice". So are you arguing that consensus can be ignored because that consensus can change, in any direction, based on further discussion? Are you arguing that the absence of the county parameter in the U.S. infobox school example is an example of "consensus"? Alansohn (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , county is being removed by not just me and Gab4gab, and added by you at present (so far that I know of), then of course you have the new articles where the county is not added. You misunderstood, consensus is not clear as the previous discussions and the school article advice are in conflict — that conflict needs to be sorted out, that is what this discussion is for. Steven (Editor) (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , This edit is just one of thousands where other editors have been adding county. You have never pointed out any imaginary "conflict"; the absence of a county in an example (or in any article where it is not added) is not "consensus". Two meatpuppets removing a parameter is hardly consensus. Alansohn (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That edit is problematic, see this discussion. It's not "imaginary conflict", re-read everything above. What meatpuppets? Instead of complaining with nonsense, let's see how the discussion pans out and what the consensus is. Steven (Editor) (talk) 05:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , you (and Gab4gab) have repeatedly (and falsely) claimed that there is a "conflict" between school article advice regarding infobox content (which explicitly states that editors should "Provide the basic details about the school, include a street address, and the name of the county (UK, US)" and some imaginary something else that says that county is prohibited in the school infobox. If this is true, share a link to this purported consensus; if it doesn't exist, your entire effort here is based on false pretenses. Where's the proof? There have been hundreds of editors who have been adding the field for decades, but you've carefully stacked the deck here. Alansohn (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What a useless response, re-read everything above and understand the issue here. This discussion will result in either of the following three things: 1. County is not mentioned 2. It is mentioned or 3. Only certain US schools will use it — whatever the result will be is what we all will follow, and will be reflected in the article advice! Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , what a useless (and deliberately evasive) response. You have made the repeated claim that there is some conflict between guidance from school article advice regarding infobox content (which explicitly states that editors should "Provide the basic details about the school, include a street address, and the name of the county (UK, US)" and something else. What is this something else, because I've read through everything you've pointed to and THERE IS NO ALTERNATE CONSENUS BANNING THE USE OF COUNTY IN INFOBOXES. Will you ever point to this purported alternate consensus or will this decision be based on a falsehood? Alansohn (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are failing to understand the purpose of THIS discussion. I won't reply anymore to you, wasting time. Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not think the county should be mentioned in the infobox, this is a problem because we have editors including me who are removing county and Alahsohn (so far the only user I know) adding county to the infobox. When you look at the school websites, I never see them mentioning the county in its address — it's the same on the schools NCES pages where it is not mentioned in both the 'Mailing' and 'Physical Address' sections, only under the 'School Details' section in a separate County parameter. Let's not forget the articles will already have a "Schools in County, State" category or its location category, which would be a subcategory of its respective county. Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. Firstly U.S. postal service addresses, which every school lists, do not necessarily reflect where the school actually is: the U.S. postal service uses "city names" out of convenience and not in reflection of actual municipal boundaries. In this 1996 FAQ over the annexation of Kingwood to the city of Houston, the City of Houston explained that addresses will remain as "Kingwood, Texas" because the USPS does not actually consider municipal boundaries in the "city name".
 * 2. Having said that I agree that "county" should not be mentioned for U.S. schools if the school is within a municipality. If the school is not in a municipality and not in a census-designated place I believe the county should be mentioned (as there is no "city"). If the school is in a census-designated place and not in a municipality I'm leaning towards mentioning both the CDP and the county.
 * 3. I agree with omitting the county from New Jersey school infoboxes as all parts of New Jersey are in municipalities.
 * 4. As Hawaii does not have municipalities separate from counties, one should consider having the CDP and county in the infobox (if in a CDP) or just the county (if not in a CDP).
 * 5. The municipal structure for New York State is a bit unusual as many places are in both a town and a village and I'm not entirely sure which or whether should be displayed. For New York City I'd display "New York City" and the borough (which is equivalent to a county).
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I would consider adding the county into the infobox. Many states I believe have educational voting measures at the municipal or county level, and including the county would be helpful in most instances. I agree New Jersey isn't particularly helpful if the municipalities are in charge of schools, but there shouldn't be a default "no county in the infobox" rule. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with how all states break down voting for school measures. In Michigan some school districts span multiple counties (sometimes just portions of them) and some counties contain multiple school districts. So the schools you can vote about is based on what school district you live in, not which county. I'm thinking school district, which in some states is based on a county, is a more helpful field. In cases where the school does not include county in their mailing or physical address I would prefer to see county listed separately from the address. Another option is to list the county in parenthesis to indicate it is not part of the address. Gab4gab (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Parenthensis may be a good idea! I don't think any USPS postal addresses say "county" WhisperToMe (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, interesting what you said above (and that FAQ), so it seems using county won't apply to all US schools and is dependent on that school. We will need to have some sort of criteria on which to use it for and not (unless the consensus is to use county for all schools). Regarding parenthesis (pinging ), there was an issue raised regarding this here (recommend having a read). I'm proposing to turn this into an RfC to gather additional comments from those outside of the project and develop a consensus for this county issue, what you think? Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm strongly in favor of an RFC! I think an RFC with an entry on each state and U.S. territory (DC is a foregone conclusion) would help to adjust to the details of each state. Also I think the "default" should be to leave county information in if no consensus is done for a particular state, e.g. if there's no consensus formed about what to do about New Jersey schools, leave the county info in there since it was already there (I have stated a preference for omitting the county for NJ schools as New Jersey has more emphasis on municipalities).
 * The roles of counties themselves depend on each state, with counties in New England being relatively weak/insignificant and counties in the U.S. South being relatively strong. Each state has its own laws, so the importance of the county depends. In Louisiana, Florida, Alabama, Maryland, Georgia, and Virginia school districts are delineated by county. When I write articles on schools I check to see if the school is in a municipality. If not I state "unincorporated ABC County, State" and those often tend to be appear in the US South, West, and Midwest. (Hawaii, by the way, has a single statewide school district)
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea, I'm thinking of starting the RFC with something like "Should county be included in the address of US school infoboxes?" and go from there. But do you mean an RFC with dedicated sections named by state and U.S. territory? I'm not from the US so I don't know much about counties in school addresses, but would you able to help me structure the RFC by state and U.S. territory? Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure! I'll be happy to help! Have a headline for each state, starting with ===Alabama===, and after the 50 states then have one for each territory. Also ask people in the RFC to consider the following: 1. Schools in municipalities, 2. Schools not in municipalities but in census-designated places, and 3. Schools in neither a municipality nor a census-designated place. Counties are typically not indicated in USPS addresses at all, and in fact to mail a letter even the "city name" is superfluous: You only need a street name, number, and ZIP code. A letter written to "123 Park Street, Anytown, ST 01010" and "123 Park Street, Somewhereville, ST 01010" goes to the same place. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

School Logo
Hi there,

Has anyone had any issues with uploading a new logo? Due to copyright issues I have been unable to upload our new school logo and our old one still sits on our page. Can anyone advise?

Thank you Melissa

10/11/2020 13:42pm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yiamyn (talk • contribs) 08:41, November 10, 2020 (UTC)


 * Make sure that you're uploading the image just to the English Wikipedia and not to the Commons. Logos are usually copyrighted and the English Wikipedia allows images that are used under fair use whereas the Commons does not. So if you upload a copyrighted image to the Commons it will be deleted.
 * (You should also sign your Talk page posts by typing four tildes: ~ . The Wikipedia software will automatically substitute your signature instead of showing the tildes.) ElKevbo (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Should be an easy task- though there can be hiccoughs.

This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use. I have read the Wikipedia rules on Non-Free Content, and I am prepared to explain how the use of this file will meet the criteria set out there.
 * 1) Get up your target schools website. Make a screen grap of the target logo image. Save it to desktop
 * 2) In a new tab- open the wikipedia page where the image will go. Do this twice.
 * 3) To the left panel- Upload File link- press it.
 * 4) in the upload wizard- follow the instructions. Start the upload wizard it on yo
 * 5) -- Browse for the new file (you left it on your desktop)
 * 6) -- Name it- I always call the Fair use logo name-of-school.png (find it on the second tab)
 * 7) -- Copyright- this is very easy.- choose option 2 which says
 * 1) Tell it the target wikipedia page it will check
 * 2) You write the rational-- it is the logo of an organisation
 * 3) Tell it where you found the image
 * 4) Tick the check box
 * 5) Say it is being minimised by - encasing in an infobox
 * 6) Upload it- the screen goes blank- but scroll up and you find the name of the file you have successfully uploaded. Copy it.
 * 7) Immediately paste that into the infobox
 * See https://www.dropbox.com/s/rjyltrqpzt8uprw/Screenshot%20from%202020-11-10%2014-44-35.png?dl=0 and https://www.dropbox.com/s/krewo4ws7xvre1f/Screenshot%20from%202020-11-10%2014-47-08.png?dl=0 for screen dumps (will remove in 24 hrs)ClemRutter (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Alternatively share with us the article name and source page and it will happen (this time)ClemRutter (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * When you are happy- can you edit the text I have just written so it is clear- and we can use it in future. ClemRutter (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have uploaded the new logo for Waingels College. I can see from this edit when you requested help at the Teahouse that you work at the school as the communications officer, and stated "our page" — this means you have a conflict of interest and note that school articles on Wikipedia do not belong to schools; please read WP:OWN and WP:COI. You can visit this page with information on uploading images/logos etc. and this page has a simple introduction. Hope this helps, Steven (Editor) (talk) 07:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Africa school country lists
There's been some recent cleanup on African school lists, for instance is now, which with some exceptions has removed all of the schools without blue links, or for an other example see  to. These aren't great lists, the South Africa list is still unreferenced, but we've lost a lot of entries here and am wondering what the proper outcome is here. (These are not the only lists these apply to.) SportingFlyer  T · C  16:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem I find with these "List of schools in [locality/country]" lists is that a lot of them don't have any sources, so the question is, how do we know the schools listed in the article that are in that place is correct (not to forget that schools may be renamed and closed)? Having a list of schools that have articles I guess doesn't really need a source as the school article would have it. But then it brings to the question of whether we even need list of schools articles, when we have categories? Would categories not suffice? Or it's better to have both?
 * At the moment, the problem Wikipedia has is that there are thousands of terrible school articles that have only a few sentences, which makes them look like directory listings which is not what Wikipedia is. How these school articles ever made it to the mainspace I don't know, but it's like someone creates the article with few sentences with no sources or with one or two, and then say goodbye. As a result, we now have thousands that have not been edited in years and some fail notability when trying to find sources for that article. It's a big mess Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Lists allow us to include information about subjects which don't have articles, while categories can only exist on subjects which are notable enough to have an article written about them (or, cynically, non-notable subjects which haven't been deleted yet.) The Zambia list, for instance, had four references at the top which included all of the items in the list, making the list easily verifiable. Even though three of the four links were broken, the website had just moved URLs and the refs can be fixed very easily. The question remains: what's the proper cleanup action here? SportingFlyer  T · C  22:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd check websites of education ministries. I found Ministry of Education (Bahrain) lists all of the government schools in the country, for example.
 * For schools closed/renamed, check the Wayback Machine which could be used to find older copies of websites.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 07:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a number of countries to check, but for instance, with Zambia universities, I'm thinking of resetting the article to the original diff, updating the references in the article to the education ministry website, and then spot-checking to make sure the old list is still accurate. Do you (or any readers) see any problems with this? SportingFlyer  T · C  10:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that! WhisperToMe (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked list items have to be referenced to reliable independent sources. Which I don't think the websites of governments who are running the schools really count as. Lists should only include notable items to and there's notability problems when it comes things only refenced to primary sources. Really, SportingFlyer should have had all this figured it out for certain before he started editing the lists and reverting the work I did on them. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Which reference states this? I've written lists of schools where not every entry needed a secondary (non-government) soure but further non-obvious information does. I looked at Lists but nothing jumped out at me right away WhisperToMe (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:LISTN says for stand alone lists that "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." Otherwise, if they aren't independently notable as a group each individual item in the list has to be. Either by being referenced to an independent secondary source or by way of it having an article and being a blue link. In the case of the school lists, at least from what I've seen so far none of them are independently notable as a "group or set." BTW, even in cases where they are, the lists still likely be exhaustive and there would be other inclusion criteria besides just notability, because Wikipedia isn't a directory. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are not looking in the right place. WP:LISTN is for determining whether the actual list itself as a whole is notable, not the list items. You're looking for something like WP:LISTCRIT, which says source material must be supported by reliable sources. In terms of only including a list of schools which are accredited by a government, the government's list of accredited schools would be a proper reference for determining whether an item should be in the list. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Both are applicable and pretty much say the same thing anyway. WP:LISTN is specifically about when "individual items in the list do or do not need to be independently notable." Which exactly what this discussion is about and mirrors what I said. Mainly "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set." Otherwise individual items need to be notable. Which BTW is also stated in WP:SOURCELIST "all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view, plus the other content policies as well." Which is exactly what you said. That source material (in this case for individual items in the list) must be supported by reliable sources. So, just to reiterate what individual items are included in a list follow the same guidelines as any other content in Wikipedia. And the guidelines are pretty clear that both come from "independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."


 * Otherwise, your argument is that A. Lists and individual list items aren't beholden the same guidelines as any other kind of content in Wikipedia. Which isn't supported by the evidence. B. That reliable sources can be ones that don't fact check and aren't accurate. Which is just ridiculous. C. That a subject's own website discussing itself determines notability or that notability doesn't matter. Both of which are clearly wrong. Again if the the items aren't notable as a group, they have to be individually notable. Period and notability doesn't come from a primary source. Period.


 * BTW, there are plenty of times when individual items are removed from lists. Non-notable people are routinely removed from lists of alumni in school articles all the time. Non-notable locations are removed from lists in geographical articles and lists. Non-notable bands are routinely removed from music related lists all the time. Non-notable Restaurants are removed from lists of restaurants. Etc. Etc. It's a pretty basic, non-controversial thing. They aren't removed based on things like osmosis or sothesaying. They are removed for exactly the reasons I gave and which are pretty clearly mirrored in what the the guidelines say. No list is exhaustive and no list that will stay in Wikipedia is linked to only primary sources. There are list articles deleted all the time at AfD for sports seasons, TV show episodes, Etc. Etc. that get deleted for only being referenced to primary sources, a single source, only being made up of red links, or non-sourced items, etc etc. Lots of schools lists have been deleted for the same things. Again, it's not osmosis. This is all extremely routine stuff, that happens all the time in Wikipedia, and isn't an issue outside of you making it one. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you're not quite right on this. The list I asked about here, List of universities in Zambia, is limited to accredited universities in Zambia. If you think the article fails WP:LISTN, please take it to AfD. WP:LISTN also specifically says Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles. You are confusing whether the article is notable with whether the items on the list need to be notable, and they clearly do not. I also see this is not the only place where your school list edits have been controversial. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm good. Any half knowledgeable person knows that AfDs aren't the place to discuss what individual items are worth including in a list. Also, last time I checked this was a general discussion about "cleanup on African school lists" (at least that's what you said it was about in your first message). Which is what I, and I assume WhisperToMe, am talking about. If you have particular grievance about an edit to a specific list that I've made, then the place to air would be either on the specific talk page or my own. Seeing as how you were unwilling to discuss this on my talk page when I gave you an opportunity to, I assume the talk page of the article would be the appropriate venue, but this isn't it. Outside of that, notice the quoted you cited says "although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." If we ignore everything else and just go by that (which I rather not, but I'll indulge you for a minute), last time I checked I am an editor and therefore it's at my discretion as to what should be included in the list or not. Getting a holier than thou attitude just because you disagree that I'm an editor who can practice my discretion by removing certain items from the list and refusing to discuss it in the appropriate venues, isn't the appropriate way to deal with things.  Anyway, like I said, no list is exhaustive anyway and just because the items in List of high schools in South Africa might be notable as group, it doesn't mean all 758 of them should be included. Just like List of 1960s musical artists doesn't include every damn musical artists from the 60s. I'm sure other people who aren't you would agree with me and I know the guidelines do. Off the top of my head there are some essays about splitting long lists. That might an option. Although, a lot of the specific country schools lists have been deleted due to lacking notability and for good reason IMO. Excluding certain items that aren't notable and should be left out anyway like I have is another one. Again, that's something to be discussed on the particular articles talk page though. It's also just a part of normal maintenance and not controversial outside of you treating it like it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not at your sole discretion, though - it is at the discretion of the community, and the fact you are editing in an area that isn't the most visible means your edits may not be immediately noticed by others. Wikipedia is about consensus-building. I confirmed here before adding items back into lists because I wanted to make sure any additional edits that I made would not be deleted, and to get a bigger audience than would be on the talk page of any individual articles. I went ahead and restored non-notable list items multiple articles with in-line sources, which is not technically required, but helps to avoid future deletion. It's also not "normal maintenance" - the fact many different editors have had to address your maintenance recently should be a clue that you haven't built consensus around the edits that you're making. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, to address another one of your points, I cannot find any instance of "List of schools in country" being deleted at any point dating back to 2012 and the only list I can find that was specific which got deleted was a "List of primary schools in Mauritius." So that is incorrect. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I never said it was. Just because Wikipedia is consensus based doesn't mean that someone has to go through a protracted, obtuse, consensus building exercise in some obscure medium every damn time they want to edit an article or do basic maintenance. Especially when it comes to things that are pretty well worn paths already, that are relatively non-controversial edits like deleting non-notable, non-reliably sourced items from a list. Otherwise, your just WP:LAWYERing and trying to get your way through red tape. You talking about consensus is also a little rich considering your the one that wasn't willing to discuss this. When it was your issue. Consensus is built by the people who have a problem with something working the disagreement out with the other parties involved. Not by reverting a bunch of edits someone has made, refusing to discuss why, and then telling them to take it up with AfD or some other place. BTW, I'm pretty sure some of the other items where originally added by people who didn't get consensus to add the items either. Including COI editors. It's ridiculous to act like your edits and their edits (which had nothing to do with consensus are perfectly legit), but then treat my edits that are based on the guidelines, other well established norms, and are reflected in pretty much every "good" list on Wikipedia aren't. As far as my other edits, citing a disagreement I had with a couple of other people over something that isn't related to this at all is pretty juvenile and not a good argument. Especially since your the one that started the whole thing and you massively exacerbated it once it got going. Throwing an argument that you caused in someone's face as a way to invalidate what they are saying is pretty bad faithed. My guess that you partly caused the problems for no other reason then that it would give you and the other people involved fodder for the next time there was a disagreement. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

As per WikiProject_Schools/Article_guidelines non-notable schools should generally redirect to the school district (North American public schools) or locality (private schools/other countries). I've redirected Catholic parochial schools in the US to archdiocese articles as the archdiocese functions similar to a school district. Large North American school districts and/or localities would have daughter articles that are lists (as the information would be too much for the "mother" articles), and it becomes necessary for non-notable schools to redirect to those lists. Therefore by design at least some lists of schools will need to have non-notable schools. However "lists of schools in ABC country" are not usually targets of redirects from non-notable schools. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am acutely aware of Black History Month and Black Lives Matter and it seems obvious that our coverage of African Schools will be woefully thin. It follows on that we won't have the editing infrastructure in place, and the secondary references we love will not be as plentiful as in the UK or the US. We need to stop playing the righteous colonialist, and become welcoming and flexible. Yes, we  put redlinked schools in the [!List of schools in Thiscountry!] and they stay there until a better home has been found. If there exists an article [!List of schools in Thisdistrict in Thiscountry!] it will go there. A diligent editor may like to create [!List of schools in Thisdistrict in Thiscountry!] first, them move the redlinked school. I did search for List of schools in Burkina Faso so I could provide a withering example- but it did provide an illustration of my other point- there is a lot more content that has to be written. ClemRutter (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I recall allafrica.com had archives of newspapers from African countries. After obtaining a list of schools from the Burkinabe ministry of education one could check online if Burkinabe newspapers wrote about any of the high schools. If not, we could see if a Wikimedian in Ouagadougou could find newspaper archives. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be pretty obvious that editing decisions in Wikipedia aren't made based on the existence of holidays or social justice organizations. Also, it's generally well agreed on that lists full of red links as a way to tell what articles haven't been created yet aren't a good thing and that you should create the article first. Instead of just creating a bunch of lists full of nothing but red links. A few of them here or there might be fine, but that's about it. Sure, create [!List of schools in Thisdistrict in Thiscountry!], but not before there's at least some articles to blue link to in it and your sure there's some list items that can be reliably sourced. Don't just make list articles for their own sake though. Wikipedia isn't a directory and doing so is what's led to the exact kind of problems we are having now with there being to much junk articles about schools that need cleaning up like WhisperToMe has said. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think I said that the non-notable school lists are always junk in my reply above. In fact they can be well-sourced from media organizations. The wave of Catholic school closures ongoing in the U.S. meant plenty of articles in local newspapers and TV stations have been written about closed Catholic schools and those articles can be used to add substance to lists of closed Catholic schools (I did exactly that recently).
 * We should try to cover countries which haven't been written about as much, as the Wikimedia Foundation itself has placed diversity as a key goal. Having said that WP:V is also important, so we should try to ferret out relevant sources when possible. If it means asking a Wikipedian a huge favor, going into a library in Lagos or Abidjan to get copies of newspaper articles, we could do that.
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Another problem would be to create a redirect of a school to a locality/list article where that article does not have a source confirming the school exists in that location — that would make the redirect void (per WP:V: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed"). A list full of red links is terrible and absolutely Wikipedia is not a directory — it's important to remember that not every school will exist on Wikipedia, so it's likely many of the red link schools you see in lists may never have an article due to it not meeting notability guidelines (don't forget WP:NSCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1. Re: "does not have a source confirming the school exists in that location" that's indeed why it's important to rely on ministry of education lists for some of these countries.
 * 2. When one wants to make an article on a school I strongly agree that reliable secondary sources need to be the bases of school articles and should be incorporated into lists whenever possible. I've sometimes gone as far as asking someone in a library in Los Angeles to send scans of a master's degree thesis to prove notability of a school. One could find inventive ways of getting the necessary sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 2. When one wants to make an article on a school I strongly agree that reliable secondary sources need to be the bases of school articles and should be incorporated into lists whenever possible. I've sometimes gone as far as asking someone in a library in Los Angeles to send scans of a master's degree thesis to prove notability of a school. One could find inventive ways of getting the necessary sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't get what your saying. If the list is well-sourced from media organizations how would it be non-notable? My point was that you agree that there is a lot of cleanup of non-notable things that needs to be done. Including with lists. Which I'm pretty sure is what you said. I agree with you that we should try to cover countries which haven't been written about as much. That's one of the reasons I'm cleaning up lists. It's not productive though and it's also putting the cart before the horse to create a list of like 760 schools where only two of them are blue linked and the rest are red linked just so people can have an idea of what articles could be made. I'm currently in a discussion with someone about a list of schools with like 480 items where 2/3s are either red linked or not referenced to a reliable source. He thinks the list is perfectly fine the way it is though because it supposedly helps attract children to Wikipedia if the name of their school is in a list or something. Supposedly me doing anything at all to it is vandalism. None of which serve anyone. Let alone Wikipedia. Just putting a bunch of stuff in a list and calling it good isn't going to attract anyone to create more articles or increase diversity. Ultimately, the articles should mostly come before the lists. Otherwise, you get people like him, lists with 789 red links, and list rot.


 * I don't think just because articles for some schools will never be created that it then means it's cool to have a bunch of red links sitting around in lists. Wikipedia isn't a directory and WP:WRITEITFIRST is sort of a thing. Also, references on individual items have to be reliable and reliability is dependent on the source being independent. Which ministry of education lists aren't. If that's the only source that can be found, then the item should be removed from the list. Period. Just like non-reliably sourced information can be removed from articles. Lists have to follow the same guideline as everything else in Wikipedia and don't get a special pass just because they are lists. We aren't just going for verifiability when we decide what to include either. WP:LISTCRITERIA says "Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence." On red links it also says "Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever." So, articles should be fully dependent on if there is a possibility for it to be an article eventually. IMO "soon." But that doesn't mean to 1/1 copy a government directory or something similar into a list and then create a bunch of articles based on it (or don't) because "hey, maybe some of the red links will be articles at some point when some kids contribute." Like the guy I'm having the disagreement with thinks. Which I'm sure we agree on. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * What I'm afraid of though is if one doesn't encourage redlinks, Wikipedia will loses its momentum. The idea is to encourage new editors to add more about what they know and red links are meant to be invitations for that. The WMF is actively trying to broaden Wikipedia's reach into global south countries and I'm happy to encourage that. I have found ways of sourcing articles on schools in Anglophone Africa at least (Kenya and Nigeria). WhisperToMe (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My guess would be that redlinks are generally inappropriate unless you know for sure a topic is notable and it just hasn't had an article written yet. For a lot of these African countries, we have a verifiable list of schools from the government - that's what I based the update of List of universities in Zambia on. The current issue isn't redlinks (since a non-notable list entry doesn't need to have a link at all), but the contention that we shouldn't have any schools in these lists that aren't notable, i.e. blue-linked, as opposed to including schools which are verifiable but may not meet WP:GNG. I think capturing that data is important and encyclopaedic as long as it's verifiable. (Also, WhisperToMe, for English-speaking countries I've found the biggest newspapers in the country typically have good site search functionality for places like Botswana.) SportingFlyer  T · C  19:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been more the clear with you a number of times that I want both blue linked and notable reliably/independently referenced list items in the articles. No where once have I ever said I just want blue linked items. I'd appreciate it if you stop miss quoting me about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to be absolutely clear on your position, you think a list should include any schools that have an article, and any schools that could be notable enough for an article (with independent references showing notability), and not include any schools which would not be notable enough for a standalone article? SportingFlyer  T · C  21:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No. I think a list should include any schools that have an article and any that are notable enough to be referenced to A reliable/independent source. In no is "A" reference "references." Nor is "A" reliable/independent source enough to create an article either. Otherwise, we would all just create the articles and they would be blue linked to. If any item in the list got to the point of having more then one independent/reliable source, then I'd expect that's what would be done to. In-depth Etc. Etc. aside because that's a separate issue. Although, I don't think having 20 items in the list referenced to a single website list that they are exact copies of and that don't contain any actual details is helpful or follows the guidelines. That's not the point in something being referenced. Like you couldn't 1/1 recreate a book that's just a list of the names of all the schools and call it done. Least of which because it would likely be copyright infringement, but also for other reasons. The source should discuss the school it's being used as a reference for. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Directory-like school articles
Let's take this one for example: Sasolburg High School which looks like a directory — it's been like this for more than 10 years, is this improving the encyclopedia (there are many more like this)? Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Be careful there Steven. No matter what the quality of the articles are, you might get accused of having racist intent or of adding to systemic racism just for discussing them. In the meantime there's plenty of other examples though. For instance Hillside School, Addis Ababa, Istituto Statale Italiano Omnicomprensivo di Addis Abeba, Lideta Catholic Cathedral School, that's just from one country and off the top of my head. There's plenty more. I'd argue they don't improve the encyclopedia. The problem is no one can go within a hundred miles of them without being viciously attacked. This diff being a particularly erroneous example, but it's hardly an outlier. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As a counterpoint, does Sedan High School improve the encyclopaedia? SportingFlyer  T · C  20:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE isn't a valid argument. Least of which because plenty of people are cleaning up articles for schools in America and even more so because this discussion, which you started, is specifically about Africa. Also, no one is stopping you or anyone else from doing an AfD for it. People, including you, are trying to stop others from doing AfDs for schools that are located in Africa though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No one is trying to stop you from AfDing African schools. I have been responding to your AfDs/PRODs because I am trying to prevent notable schools from being deleted. Furthermore, WP:OSE isn't a valid argument at AfDs, and this isn't an AfD. The point I am trying to make is that there are heaps of these sorts of directory style school articles from all over the world. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:13, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Really? Last time I checked there's a AN about me where people, including you, are trying to get me blocked exactly for that reason. You think Phil's whole thing, Gbawden's comment in Herschel Girls' School and another AfD, and the comment made in Catherine Buckle where just random off the cuff remarks, just for the hell of them, that had no purpose or intent behind them? I'd love to see a single AfD for an American school where there's been anywhere near that level of abuse. Hell, what about a bunch of people trying to get someone blocked because they did five AfDs for American schools that got deleted, because "probably they were motivated by or contributing to racism, or something...racism.." --Adamant1 (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, in Matriculation in South Africa Steve Andrew gave me a pretty good once over. Including saying "The nominator should please expect more opposition if they continue on this path." And what was the "path" that I going down that I should expect more "opposition for if I continued down"? The article was merged. Which was a perfectly fine, uncontroversial, and a solution that I was 100% on the side of. No one is trying to stop me from doing AfDs, except for the people that say they are like Andrew. Also, that AfD was specifically used as an example of my incompetency in the AN by Andrew and others. Expect in the end, it was a completely uncontroversial merge that everyone agreed with. Which is exactly what I'm talking about. Certain people making big fat issues out of absolutely nothing just to try and stop me from doing AfDs. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh no no, this was just an example of one, there are many others in other countries, I could list many here that are similar to this one and have not been edited for years, it doesn't really improve the encyclopedia at all — that Hillside School, Addis Ababa has been like that for 10 years and Sedan High School 2 years. WP:WPSCH/AG also discusses to avoid stubs and with articles like these you're not really getting anything — the information you get from these articles is equivalent to a schools listing on a directory website. If I'm creating a school article, I will check beforehand there are sources available to help me build the article and satisfy notability guidelines. This is a big problem with school articles on Wikipedia at the moment, it's a big mess. I think we need to start again, by that I mean the ones that fail notability to be gone; creating articles on Wikipedia is not difficult so they can always be created in future. Perhaps one big AfD nomination is needed? Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "Perhaps one big AfD nomination is needed?" That will just get roundly rejected, criticized, and then it will be much harder to nominate each one individual. Therefore, just making things much worse in the long run. Although, I agree with you that it's a big mess and needs to be dealt with. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes there is the problem of criticism but then the other problem is clogging up AfD with individual nominations — something really needs to be done, it is a big mess. Of the new school articles I've moved to draftspace (some editors do the same but not all are checked properly and end up being kept in mainspace) — many have been declined and some rejected as not sufficiently notable for inclusion, which does show an underlying problem that Wikipedia has. This task is not easy and not to mention being busy in real life Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Clogging up AfDs is a problem. So is being busy in real life. Which is why I think PRODs are a good alternative. They take a lot less time, don't over burden AfD, and the barrier to recreating the articles is none existent if someone wants to work on them later. I suspect, especially with the really old ones that still have almost no content, that whoever created them and the vast majority of users out there likely won't care if they are deleted. The problem is that certain users think everything should go through the AfD process. Then they complain about the amount of AfDs that are being done. Leaving doing nothing and sticking to the status quo as the only option they will accept. While there are pros and cons to each solution, I do think there are some clear cut cases where doing PRODs are the better option. Unfortunately, they just can't be used at this point though because people remove them. So, I don't know what another option would be. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Colleges and universities
I'd just like to highlight some of these recent edits of African school lists have also removed colleges and universities (eg. List of schools in Zambia) – which are definitely notable – and may be the only place available on Wikipedia with a complete or near complete list. This also frustrates efforts to make new articles. LittleDwangs (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Last I checked the consensus and guideline is that long lists of mainly red links shouldn't be made just so people know what articles could be made later. Also, colleges and universities are not inherently notable either and still have to be sourced to reliable sources. As I've pointed out to you several times essays are not guidelines. So universities are not which are not "definitely notable" as your claiming. If you disagree with the guidelines or think they should be changed, the place to discuss it would probably be on talk page of the article for the guideline you disagree with. It's not like Google search isn't a thing either if you want to create an article for a college at some point. You'd have to use it to find references for the article anyway. In no way are lists meant to be exhaustive just so people don't have to do a Google search. Heck, there's even the articles edit history. Also, as a side that if you have an issue with a particular edit I made, I'm more then willing to discuss it on my talk page or the talk page of the article. I don't think Wikiproject discussions are really good places to hash out personal problems with particular editors or an edit they made that you disagree with though. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You'd find extraordinarily little support for the deletion of articles about legitimate colleges and universities in any country. (The edge cases are usually institutions whose existence is uncertain or whose legitimacy is in question.) ElKevbo (talk) 05:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Good thing that's not what the discussion or issue is about then. That said, there are some instances outside of the "edge cases" you mention where colleges or universities are deleted. For instance if the article is clearly promotional. Although, like I said that's not what is being discussed anyway and it's better if we stick to the topic. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Deprecate WikiProject Schools/Help ?
WikiProject Schools/Help has been used only a handfull of times since I created it 10 years ago. It was probably never sufficiently publicised or the coordinators do not have it on their watchlists. This talk page seems to fulfill the role. Mark as historical? Or better still, send to MfD? As I am retired, I won't personally be responding to comments. FYI:, ,. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look, and wait for comments from other souls before I enter the ring. I keep useful stuff that I need to refer to in a sandbox. Which allows me to be more relaxed- I might still be active but my short-term memory seems to have retired. Speak soon. --ClemRutter (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is interesting — I think marking it as historical might be the best way forward, directing any visitors to visit this talk page instead? Created a long time ago, it has history and a potential for it to be used again in future. I think it would be easier to centralise things and because of low use? I'm not sure Steven (Editor) (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Decision time. I concur with . --ClemRutter (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

FLRC nomination
I have nominated List of schools in Cardenal Caro for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Adding the rest of the Schools
Will you guys add the rest of the schools. ArekSmith (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "The rest of the schools"? Like most topics with many "examples," most are not notable enough to qualify for Wikipedia articles.  Can you be more specific?  What do you mean by "the rest of the schools?"  Do you mean the "rest of the world-class universities?"  Well yes, if we are missing any please let us know.  If you mean "Every school on the planet including elementary schools and trade schools that few outside the local community have ever heard of except maybe in a mere mention" then no, per WP:Notability. If you mean something else, please clarify. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  17:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , who is '[we] guys'? There is no team that writes the school articles. Wikipedia is built and edited by people like you - but please first read the numerous helpful comments from other users on your talk page. For universities, please see the universities project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Interpreting GNG
I have just written this response to a deletion request supporter. Any comments?
 * Reply : There is nothing in the WP:NSCHOOL and WP:ORG that says that a school has to be more notable than any other. Wikipedia uses the word notable to refer the quality of its reference not in the way it is used in conversation- it doesn't have to be famous, or have notoriety. Following each of those guidelines (which are shortcuts to the same document), you are taken to WP:GNG which says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list".ClemRutter (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct. Whether a school is notable has nothing to do with any other schools. There's a train of thought that certain things have to be "more ordinary" than other topics, and that's not correct. It's a result of whether the school itself passes WP:GNG or WP:NORG (which is weird, since if it passes WP:NORG it passes WP:GNG). SportingFlyer  T · C  17:15, 17 December 2020 (UTC)