Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Archive 28

RfC on African school lists
Question: Must a school be notable to be included on a country-wide or region-wide list of schools, specifically in Africa? A yes vote would require any school on a list to be notable or at least referenced inline, a no vote would maintain the status quo, which I believe would allow any verifiable school to be included in the list as long as there is a link to verify the school somewhere on the page, such as to a government website with a list of schools. Issue: Adamant1 has been removing massive amounts of information from African school lists on the grounds the list entries are "not notable" and changing the list inclusion criteria from "list of schools in (country)" to "list of notable schools in (country)." Sometimes the removed information is clearly verifiable (see: ). Sometimes the removed information is in a very poorly sourced list and slightly less problematic since you can't clearly verify the schools from the provided references (see List of schools in Rivers State). And sometimes the removed information doesn't contain inline references is easily verified using sources provided in the article, which has led to a functional stalemate over at Talk:List of schools in Namibia, and has led to Adamant1 continuing to remove lots of information from African school lists unabated. I am starting this RfC to determine whether we want to change these lists from being a list of every verifiable school to only properly referenced schools in order to break the stalemate. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment It's not a matter of if they are "notable" or "verifiable" and that's not why I have been removing entries. As I've pointed out in List of schools in Namibia and several other places, the entries are removed if they are not reliably sourced. Also, as I have pointed out in List of schools in Namibia many people have been removing non-reliably sourced entries from the lists for a while, not just me. In no way is the "status quo" to indiscriminately keep everything that's added to the lists as it's being claimed. So making this solely about me, "notability" when that's not the issue per say, or acting like the "normal" way of doing is keep everything all the time is simply being untruthful about this and won't resolve the issue. At least not as far as I'm concerned and I suspect as far as other people go either. People, including me, will continue to remove none reliably sourced entries from the lists. Just because they are "verifiable" doesn't mean they should not be referenced with reliable sources. Period.


 * The RfC should be "Must a school be reliably sourced to be included on a country-wide or region-wide list of schools, specifically in Africa?" Since that's the real issue here. The "notability" of a school doesn't ultimately matter if there are not reliable sources to substantiate if it is notable or not. Likely SportingFlyer won't do an RfC for that though, because he knows it won't get off the ground. Since the many people who have removed non-reliably sourced entries from the lists clearly disagree with his opinion that items do not to be referenced to reliable sources. In List of schools in Namibia I provided a list of some of those people. In order to give this a fair hearing, he should rephrase the RfC to accurately reflect what the actual problem here is, have it accurately reflect that the status quo is not to keep everything, and ping the people I listed who have removed non-reliably sourced items to get their opinions about it. This RfC doesn't account for the guidelines either and it really should. For instance, SportingFlyer thinks red links should not be removed for schools that have little chance of articles being created for them. when the guidelines are pretty clear that red links should not be created for schools in those cases and getting rid of them is pretty uncontroversial. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, when you say that something is "verifiable" but that it isn't "reliably sourced"? We usually understand "verifiable" to mean that the information came out of a reliable source.  See, e.g., the first sentence of WP:V:  "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source."  Information that can be found only in unreliable sources is not considered verifiable.  Do you perhaps mean "there's an WP:inline citation already on the page" (which is not technically a requirement outside of WP:MINREF content)?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an example would be clearer: You removed the University of El Taref in Algeria from the List of universities in Algeria.  There was a link inline to the university's website, http://univ-eltarf.dz.  This is generally considered a reliable source for verifying that a university exists, where it is located, etc.  Did you maybe want to see Independent sources for that content, rather than "merely" Reliable sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, I think the premise of your question is wrong, because WP:RS says "articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." So, it's not an either or thing. Articles should be based on reliable "and" independent sources. Also, what makes something reliable is that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Otherwise, one would be arguing that reliable sources do not have to be accurate. Which would be ridiculous. Therefore, from my understand it is OK for things to be used sources on themselves to "verify" basic facts, but only if it is supported by an actually reliable source. More so with companies and organizations. For instance, I wouldn't take a random website of any random company as the only way to "verify" that the company exists. Let alone as a way to discuss it in Wikipedia. As anyone can create a website about themselves and say whatever they want to in it. I'm pretty sure that is the standard in Wikipedia also. Which is why things like personal wordpress blogs or Twitter posts are not usually used solely or really at all as authoritative sources of information.
 * More relevant to this, I have zero problem with using an organizations website to "verify" the existence of the organization, as long as it is not the only source that is doing so "and also" as long as the list singularly (or mostly) hinges on references to organizational websites. Since Wikipedia is not a directory and should not act as a WP:LINKFARM. As that guideline says "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." Which most (or all) of these list articles that contain external links goes against. For instance List of universities in Algeria has 26 blue linked entries, 61 external references to university websites, and nothing else. It's more so a problem in that article because they aren't even being used in a "references" section as "references" in the first places and WP:EL says "external links should not normally be placed in the body of an article." This is not a black and thing though and it's largely dependent on the particulars of the lists. For instance, I'm fine leaving a few personal websites as sources in lists as backup to "verify" something when they are actually being used as legitimate references, not just as in article external links, and when the article does not singularly (or mostly) depend on them. There should still be independent references also though as WP:RS states there should be. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If "what makes something reliable is that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", then WP:ABOUTSELF needs to be repealed. ABOUTSELF says that it's sufficient for editors to "take a random website of any random company" as a way to verify that the company exists.  Editors are permitted to use other/better sources, but the random corporate website does, in fact, verify the existence of a company (or, in this context, school).
 * I think you have overlooked WP:RSCONTEXT: a source can be "actually reliable" for a specific individual statement without having any of the characteristics that we associate with reliability in general.
 * More generally, it is not possible for something to be verified without a reliable source being involved. Maybe you're thinking of that new concept, the "WP:GREL source"?  Neither WP:V nor WP:RS were written with this concept in mind, so if you have that picture in your mind, you're going to make choices that aren't really supported by the actual WP:V policy.  (The idea that you ought to write an article from primarily WP:INDY sources really belongs to WP:NOT and WP:NPOV, though.  WP:V and WP:RS are really about individual sentences.)
 * As for formatting, I think you'll want to look at the WP:ELLIST section, which says that this formatting system is acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the guidelines. Including what WP:ELLIST says. As you said, WP:ABOUTSELF says "sufficient" to take a random company website as way" to verify it's existence. It doesn't say it's the "best" or "only" way to in "all situations." Your ignoring the part of my last message where I said I was fine doing it in cases where it was, just not in cases where it isn't. The same goes for your other references of the guidelines where you are ignoring the context. For instance WP:ABOUTSELF says "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves", but an external reference in a table is not being used as ways for the schools to proved "sources of information about themselves." It also uses the word "material" and an external link is not "material." So it doesn't apply to this.
 * The same goes for you WP:RSCONTEXT out of context and without considering the situation. It says "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article." An external link to a companies website in a table is not in any way related to a "statement being made" about anything. Nor is it a reference to one. It would be if it was being used as a reference though and not an external link. More importantly that particular paragraph uses the word "publication" multiple times. So, it's pretty clear that it is referring to and is about publications. Last time I checked, a companies website is not a publication. So WP:RSCONTEXT doesn't apply in this case any more then WP:ABOUTSELF does. It would be fine to use if this had anything to do with publications though.
 * As far as WP:ELLIST goes, sure, it's an "acceptable" way to do things. Again though, is it the best or only way to do things? In the case of List of universities in Algeria it isn't. Since some of the schools websites are dead references and none of them "verify" anything in the article except that the schools exist or might have anyway. For instance the website of the first entry, University of Adrar, is a dead link. Which might "verify" that the University of Adrar exists, or did at one point, but it does not "verify" that it was established in 1986 or that it is (or was) a Public university. So, why not use an independent source for it that "verifies" the school exists, verifies the other information in the article about it, and fits with WP:RS? instead of using a dead link that accomplishing none of those things just because WP:ABOUTSELF says primary "material" "may" be used? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * > an external reference in a table is not being used as ways for the schools to proved "sources of information about themselves."
 * Says who? The difference between citing   and   is just a difference in formatting.  There's nothing magical about adding the ref tags that makes the school's website more likely to tell you what the school's name is or where the school is located (all information you blanked).  A school website already "fits with WP:RS" for these simple claims.
 * The thing about the "best" approach is that when something is sufficient, then it doesn't matter whether it's "best". You're welcome to upgrade the sources, or to improve the formatting, but when what's there is actually sufficient, then you're not allowed to blank it just because it's not the "best".  When we're building articles, we must not make the perfect be the enemy of good.  If you want "best", your job is to go find the ideal source yourself, not to make articles worse by blanking content that is actually verifiable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "The difference between citing and is just a difference in formatting." <-(cut code for brevity) Except we aren't talking about a difference in formatting. I'm talking about using an independent reliable source that say when the school was incorporated and confirms it exists instead of the schools landing page. Which doesn't contain that information and is a dead link anyway. How is that "just a difference in formatting"?
 * "There's nothing magical about adding the ref tags that makes the school's website more likely to tell you what the school's name is or where the school is located (all information you blanked)." No, really? That's not why I removed it and I never said it was. I removed the information because it wasn't verified on the schools website or another place from what I could tell. If you can find a source that says when the school was created or are able to find the information on the schools website cool, because maybe I just missed it. So feel free to add it and a link to where the information actually is if you can. It's ridiculous to treat me like there's something wrong with removing unsourced information just because a list article contains a link to a random landing page that doesn't contain the pertinent information though.
 * "When we're building articles, we must not make the perfect be the enemy of good." I agree with that, but it could also apply to how people are treating me about this. I could be like "hey man, lists aren't exhaustive anyway. So don't let perfect be the enemy of navigable by expecting List of schools in Pakistan to contain 60,000 list items" or whatever. So what's your point, why doesn't it apply to how I'm being treated about this, and why aren't you applying the standard to yourself?
 * "If you want "best", your job is to go find the ideal source yourself, not to make articles worse by blanking content that is actually verifiable." Feel free to cite where I said I expect the sources to be the "best" sources, because it's not what I said. What I did say is that I want them to be independent and to actually contain the information they are being used for because that's what the guidelines say. Which dead references don't do. I'm sorry you have such a problem with that.
 * If you or ToughPigs think List of schools in Pakistan should be the "best" it can be by containing 60,000 list items that say when they were founded, cool. Find independent non-dead references that actually contain the information then. I could really care less. I'm not doing the work for you just because you think guidelines don't apply though. You have zero clue what I researched and couldn't find any references for. But feel free to continue treating me like I'm being indiscriminate and not researching things. While you and other people take guidelines out of context and use platitude filled statements like "don't let perfect be the enemy of the good" to make arguments. But not actually doing anything to improve things.
 * SportingFlyer reverted me and said I couldn't edit an article without asking him for permission first because I committed the grievous sin of trying to fix dead links. Then he left them for someone else to fix. Which is largely what instigated this. Whereas, ToughPigs can't even be bothered to copy a reference to a talk page. Apparently I'm being arguementive for asking him to. Neither one of will entertain the idea of creating regional lists either. But then I should be the one to find 60,000 references just so a few people who want to ignore the guidelines don't get upset by a couple of schools being removed from a list. Plus, you have the audacity to tell me I'm the one being a perfectionist and that I should be the one to put out the effort to reference things. It's not even my issue. It's yours and theirs. You and them could have spent all this time creating regional lists and (or) finding references. Since your the ones with the problem. None of you want to though. You rather just argue, place blame on me when it isn't even my thing, and leave the actual effort up to other people. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a flagrant lie. I never once said that you needed "my permission" to edit a page. SportingFlyer  T · C  10:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, technically you didn't say it out right. Among other things you just reverted me multiple times on multiple articles, badgered me about my edits in different talk pages, and you sided with Pgallert when he said "If you remove things from this list before reaching consensus, I'll revert you on sight." Because 100% you agreed with it. Both of you even tried to get me blocked over this whole thing. So, every indication was that you weren't going to let me make any edits you didn't think were OK. You didn't do the RfC until after I suggested it like 5 times and you realized I wasn't going to just do things your way. Or was that all just a good faithed effort on your part to work the whole thing out so I could make edits you didn't necessarily approve of? BTW, I love how people involved in this (including you) can miss quote me, take what I say out of context, lie about what the guidelines say or at least be transparently dishonest about them, and try to assassinate my character and that's all cool, but then if I use a descriptive phrase to describe how you were acting I'm a bold faced liar. Hilarious. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop. Casting. Aspersions. You were editing against consensus on that article. I'm perfectly able to agree with PGallert, too. This RfC was created because of your editing patterns, and to date, no one has agreed with you. You could have been proactive and made the RfC yourself, but a quick look at that discussion shows you claimed to make an RfC about New Era but it wasn't actually a RfC . I've been trying to work this out and to get you to stop making disruptive edits regarding schools, edits that quite a number of users have commented on, but a quick look at your contributions log shows you continue not to hear this. Show me where I lied about the guidelines. Show me where I was dishonest about the guidelines. I want diffs. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus though, because PGallert had said a bunch of different things that were contradictory. Which was partly what I was basing my edits on and I told you as much. You just ignored me saying so, his inconsistency about it, and cherry picked the 1 out of 5 different things he said that agreed with you to justify reverting me. You weren't really involved in the discussion either. Except to railroad it right when me and him where starting to agree on things. There was only no consensus after that because you wouldn't allow there to be. Since the consensus likely wouldn't have agreed with what you wanted. He never had a problem with me fixing dead references either, only you did. Also, what about the article where I added "this is a list of notable schools", were people had removed non-notable entries before, that you reverted? What consensus in that article was I going against? I could really care less if you agreed with PGallert. It's the way you handled the whole thing and your attitude that I'm taking issue with. Like you dodging out on fixing the dead references after you wouldn't let me do it, or you insistence that red links be delinked and have references added them when you weren't willing to do it yourself.
 * Maybe I could have been proactive and created this RfC myself, but it goes back to what I above this about how this was originally your issue, not mine. It's on you to deal with problems you have about things. Just like I asked about New Era because I was the one that had the issue with it being used. That's only fair. And on that, I didn't "claim" I did an RfC about New Era, I requested comments about it and called it an RfC because that's what it was. Maybe it was "informal" or whatever, but it was still a request for comments. So your just splitting hairs over semantics. I didn't want it to get completely blocked from use anyway. Which might have happened with a formal RfC.
 * Re "This RfC was created because of your editing patterns" No, this RfC was created because I requested it multiple times in order to resolve and for all, because you wouldn't leave me alone and kept harassing me everywhere about my edits. Period. Like when you went off on a long diatribe in AfD about the whole thing when it had nothing to do with anything.
 * Re "edits that quite a number of users have commented on", you, PGallert, and the person that went on the crazy rant aside, there's only been like three people that have commented. That's no were near "quite a number of users" and your being extremely hyperbolic by claiming it is. RfCs aren't decided after just the people who were originally involved in the problem and like one more person comments on them. Plus, like I told ToughPigs the existence of an RfC doesn't automatically bar someone from doing what the RfC is about until it is worked out. Otherwise, show me a guideline that says so. Also, people have thanked me for my edits to the lists. So, it's not all negative and there's only been a tiny amount of negativity. It would be ludicrous to stop editing a whole category of articles just because two people on a single article took with what I was doing in that specific article. Least of which because they are issues that I have mainly worked out with PGallert in the meantime. No thanks to you. For all your talk of the need for consensus you didn't do jack squat on your side to build any or even attempt to resolve this.
 * Re "a quick look at your contributions log shows", you should really stop taking quick looks at my contributions log. That's a large part of the problem here and why I tend to not you seriously about any of this, because your repeatedly WP:WIKIHOUNDING my contributions and bringing them up everywhere as if my edits are vandalism or akin to it. Which doesn't show good faith about this on your part. Especially considering you've ignored every other instance of people doing the exact same thing I am.
 * Re "to date, no one has agreed with you." You sound exactly like ToughPigs since he said the exact same thing just to be arguementive. When like 3 people in this discussion have either said exactly what I've been saying since the start of this or taken the same positions I have. Plus, I mostly worked things out with PGallert. How exactly is three people repeating exactly what I've been saying and me mostly resolving things with PGallert "no one agreeing with me"? --Adamant1 (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Having one (1) editor say "a bunch of different things that were contradictory" doesn't mean that there's no consensus. Besides, if you think Peter's saying contradictory things, then ask him about it.  I've always found him willing to explain his thoughts again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Having one (1) editor say "a bunch of different things that were contradictory" doesn't mean that there's no consensus." It does when there are only three people involved in the disagreement and when half or more of the contradictory statements made agreed with me. But in general, if someone disagrees with you on something but is not adequately able to elaborate on why, what the problem is, or what they want instead, that's the very definition of there not being a consensus. By the nature of consensus two people can't agree on something if one of the sides isn't clear about things. Anyway, I did ask him about it. All he did was continue to not be clear and have a bad attitude. Your clear lack of knowledge about things related to this doesn't automatically (or at all) equate me not knowing what "consensus" means or me not doing due diligence on my part to discuss it with the other parties involved. Whatever your past experience with Pgallert is, it shouldn't be shocking or even need saying that people treat different users and situations differently either, but apparently those kinds of clearly obvious things need to be pointed out to you for some reason. It's ridiculous that I'm doing so and having to explaining other basic things to you, like that I asked what he wanted when he was contradictory, yet I'm suppose to follow your opinion on this when you clearly lack knowledge about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have to admit I start admiring your resolve. That said, you're not in a position to lecture anyone, because from the start it has been you who was wrong. Every single time you cite policy you have it wrong. Every single time you attack another editor---of which there are now many, in different fora, actually all over English Wikipedia---you have it wrong. You're an inch away of a topic ban, calls for which ironically resulted from your claims of someone else's wrongdoing. If you find school articles which have been abandoned, by all means change them to your liking. It is better if you care about them than if nobody does. But for those articles that have an active editor base, if nobody agrees with your suggestions, can't you just drop the stick? Because if necessary, we will continue to poke you until you finally insult the wrong editor. All the best, Pgallert (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * More ad-hominem personal attacks and nothing of substance huh? Go figure. If you bothered to read this I've tried a bunch of times to resolve this and be done with it. I even requested this be archived as un-resolved. So, I'm not the one that needs to drop the stick at this point. You and the couple of other people who are keeping this going by leaving random critical messages like the one you just did and making this about petty off-topic personal grievances are. Otherwise, I would been done with it a long time ago. I'm not the one insulting people all over Wikipedia either. You and SportingFlyer are. Let alone am I insulting people all over Wikipedia. Least of which because this is the only conversation I'm currenty involved in. I don't expect you to be honest though. It's sad that you and SportingFlyer have to resort to such things and use harassment to get your way. Apparently it's the only way you can get what you want though. Since harassment and making things personal seems to be both your go to defenses for everything and it's really all either of you have done since this started. Whereas, I've been more then civil, accommodating, and done nothing but bent over backwards to work this out in a way that would satisfy everyone. Apparently suggesting compromises, discussing things, and trying to work things makes you angry and throw out accusations though. I even compromised and let you do what you wanted with WP:List of schools in Namibia and yet your still attacking me. Again, go figure. There's clearly nothing that will satisfy you or get you to stop harrasing me. "All the best" in your anger about this and getting your way though. I'd hate to see how upset you'd be if I didn't let you have your way. I have nothing more to say to you about it then that. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Adam, when I look at List of universities in Algeria, I find that you removed:
 * Location: El Taref
 * Name: University of El Taref
 * Other name: Chadli Bendjedid University
 * Founding: 1992
 * Type: Public university
 * Source:
 * Then you say here that you removed six types of information because just one (1) allegedly wasn't verified by the linked source (which opened for me a few days ago, but not today – not that it really matters, because it's available through the Internet Archive, and WP:DEADREF doesn't let you blank content just because the URL isn't working for a couple of days, especially if the website has been archived elsewhere).
 * So I am asking: Why did you remove six pieces of information, five of which were very obviously verifiable at the main page of the website, when you could have taken the non-destructive approach of slapping a fact tag on just one of them?  Or even put the name of the university and that date into a search engine, and discovered that the information is, in fact, correct?  (It's also verifiable at the university's website when it's online, e.g., http://www.univ-eltarf.dz/fr/index.php/universite/historique )
 * This looks like a kind of ham-fisted edit, and I think you should revert yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For reference, the affected university lists appear to be:
 * List of universities and colleges in Ethiopia
 * List of universities in Somalia
 * List of universities in Algeria
 * List of universities in Morocco
 * List of universities in Liberia
 * List of universities in Tunisia
 * List of universities in Chad
 * List of universities in Zambia
 * List of universities in Angola
 * List of universities in Mali
 * List of universities in Lesotho
 * LittleDwangs (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:LISTCRIT says "Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence." I fail to see what's "ham fisted" about following the guidelines. Nor do I think I should revert myself for doing so. Also, at the end of the day core content policies can't be overridden by local consensus. If you want WP:LISTCRIT or the other relevant core guidelines I've cited about this (like WP:REDNOT or WP:LISTN) to be overridden then you should do a none local RfC to have them changed. Especially WP:LISTCRIT and WP:LISTN. Since I don't see anyone outside of a few people here having a problem with or not abiding by them. Even a few people here, including me, think WP:LISTN should be the standard. I'm definitely not reverting myself against the consensus of multiple people in this discussion. Nor am I doing so simply because people in this discussion don't have the will to implement the reasonable, guideline based alternatives to deleting information that me and other people have suggested, and that seem to be agreed on. Not that I would anyway unless the relevant guidelines are alerted or there's at least a wider discussion about it. I don't think anyone else who has removed entries or information from the lists for various guideline based reasons, including admins, should revert themselves or stop doing so either. If people want to implement what has already been agreed on or come up with inclusion criteria, beyond the lists just being indiscriminate and (or) un-maintainable/un-navigable WP:LISTCRUFT, I'd probably be fine with that. Verifiability alone clearly doesn't cut it though. Which is probably why WP:LISTCRIT says it should not be the only criteria. If no one is willing to, my suggestion is that this RfC be archive as unresolved. Instead of it remaining here just so it can act as a dumping ground for unproductive personal grievances. Which seems to be the only purpose it's served since SportingFlyer started it. Personally, I'm tired of being repeatedly criticized, hounded, and my efforts to resolve this ignored.--Adamant1 (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Adam, when the list is "Universities in ____ country", then "encyclopedic and topical relevance" actually does include listing all the current and former universities in the named country.
 * What's ham-fisted is removing all information about a university that you know exists, and that you know is located in that country, just because one of six pieces of information about that university happened not to be visible on the university's main page. Blanking everything about the whole university just because the date wasn't already cited in the article is a violation of WP:PRESERVE, and also of Wikipedia's purpose, which is not to satisfy WP:POINTY editing.  You need to stop blanking cited information.  It is not okay to blank the name, location, and other cited facts about a public university merely because the date of its founding did not happen to appear on the single webpage that you looked at (I assume that you looked at the cited source). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

RE "Adam, when the list is "Universities in ____ country", then "encyclopedic and topical relevance" actually does include listing all the current and former universities in the named country." No it doesn't. I pointed out a few examples in the other discussion of lists of "Universities in ____ country" that do not include all the current and former universities in the named country. There are plenty of more examples. So, your simply wrong about that being the standard. It's not even the standard for some regional university lists.

R.E. "What's ham-fisted is removing all information about a university that you know exists", except WP:LISTCRIT is clear "verifiability" is not the only metric that should be used for what information is contained in lists. What's ham-fisted is ignoring the guidelines and turning this into a personal grievance. More to the actual purpose of this RfC, there's 68,000 private schools in Pakistan and they are only 1/3 the total schools in that country. In all there's more then 200,000 schools. I bet we could easily verify at least 1/4 of those 68,000 private schools. Which would still be 17,000 schools. What's 100% actually ham-fisted is that you, SportingFlyer, and a few other people here think that List of schools in Pakistan would be perfectly alright as a list if it contained 17,000 entries, most of which would likely be un-referenced/red links anyway, simply because they can be "verified." That's just 1/4 of 1/3 of the total schools in the country to. Clearly SportingFlyer didn't bother to think this through and apparently neither have you. It's ridiculous and hilarious that anyone, including me, is expected to take such a position or the people who have it at all seriously about this. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, so we have an article that:
 * is actually supposed to include a complete list of all ~130 universities in that country, per LISTCRIT;
 * that actually did contain verifiABLE ("able to be verified", e.g., by editors willing to check with their favorite search engine) and already-cited (e.g., by the reliable primary source linked at the end of the row) information about most of them; and
 * you blanked most of it.
 * Your explanation for IMO improperly blanking most of the page is that a very small minority of the content you blanked (e.g., one of the six pieces of information about the first university you completely removed) has been:
 * that you don't think that ABOUTSELF sources, which are defined in WP:V, actually qualify as reliable sources (nobody agrees with this);
 * that a complete list of all universities in a small country is either unencyclopedic (it's not) or irrelevant to the topic of which universities are located in that country (so laughable that I assume your "not the only metric" claim is about what's encyclopedic); and
 * that you don't like people telling you that they think your edits are bad.
 * I have some sympathy for the last one. I imagine that it's a little hard to hear "That edit was really bad and needs to be reverted", times many articles, without feeling like it is a comment on your own editing, especially when you are the only person who makes edits like that.  From my POV, this is impersonal:  those are bad edits, and they're bad edits regardless of whether you made them, I made them, or a dozen separate editors made them.  But if you are feeling like Wikipedia is a long series of fights over your bad edits, maybe you should change your approach to editing?  Or give up on Wikipedia?  I can't imagine that any of this is fun for you, and I wouldn't fault you for wondering why you keep sticking around to help a group of people that apparently doesn't appreciate anything you do.
 * (BTW, note that I haven't argued for the existence of any list with thousands of entries. But I do think it would be fine for us to name all the bona fide universities (NB:  'universities', not 'schools') somewhere on Wikipedia, preferably on pages that list only dozens or hundreds at a time.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to do a point by point response. Hopefully it will cut down on the unnecessary word count.
 * Where does list critic say that particular list "is actually supposed to include a complete list of all ~130 universities in that country"? Unless your making a general, sweeping, global generalization that every list about universities on the planet according to list critic are supposed to include a complete list of all the universities in a country I don't see how it applies and that is disproven by all the lists of universities that don't contain every university in those countries. You can't make sweeping announcements about how things are "supposed to be", when it's neither what the guidelines say or not actually how they are in Wikipedia.
 * You cited WP:LISTCRIT in your last point. It clearly says "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." You can't pick and choose by only going with a guideline when it suites you and then ignoring it in other circumstances when it doesn't.
 * See my last comment and apply the guideline your saying I should to this.
 * I didn't say that an ABOUTSELF doesn't qualify as a reliable source. I said it doesn't qualify as one in the particular case of an external link to an organizations website landing page that doesn't say anything ABOUTSELF and isn't being used in the article as reference for anything. If it was being used as an actual reference for citing a specific piece of information on a specific page I'd probably have zero problem with that. You can't just do something like use an external link to https://www.amazon.com/ in an article about an author to justify the article containing some biographical detail and then be like "well, I'm sure he said it on Amazon somewhere. You have just to find it. So, WP:ABOUTSELF!" or whatever though. More so in cases were the website is dead.
 * Where did I say any of that? You sure seem to like misconstruing what I said to fit a particular narrative. Generally, it's hard to have a discussion about specifics when someone is doing so by making sweeping generalizations about what the other person thinks.
 * Generally, I'm fine with people saying my edits are "bad." My issue with that kind of rhetoric in this particular instance though is that the purpose of this is RfC is not "what bad edits do think Adamant1 made?", I'd probably more open to such a critique on a specific article talk page or mine. I just think it's off topic for this. Especially since in the meantime I'm being accused of bludgeoning and beating a dead horse for having this discussion. Perhaps an intentional tactic. You start an off-topic discussion. Which me responding to then gives other people cover to claim I'm bludgeoning and beating a dead horse. That said though, I don't generally find qualitive, emotion based arguments like those to be sound or productive. "I felt good before this person made an edit and now I feel bad that they made it. So, they should be reverted" is rather rhetorically weak IMO. Personally, I try my best to leave my emotions out of this. I'm sure as hell not advocating someone's edits being mass reverted based on them.
 * On your last point, it's a good use of sophistry and mind reading to try and coax me to drop this. I have to wonder why your resorting to such things if your so correct about the guidelines and such. I'd hardly say no one appreciates what I do. I get thanked for my edits all the time. Including the ones that a few people here are taking with, and really it's only a few people have taken issue with them. None of my edits have been reverted since this whole things started. Except for two reverts by SportingFlyer. I'd hardly call that universal condemnation of my edits like your making it out to be. Unless you think the world revolves you and your opinions I guess. Which I assume you don't. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This wasn't my revert: . SportingFlyer  T · C  09:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's cool. Like I said already I was planning on selectively reverting it once this was resolved anyway. Plus, in the meantime it makes LittleDwangs look petty and cuts against the narrative that I'm the one treating this like a battleground. Which I'm totally fine with. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * while I have you here maybe you and can answer a question related to this. The COI issues aside, do either of you think it would be OK or in the spirit of the guidelines if I created a personal website, put that I graduated from Harvard University on it, and then added myself to List of Harvard Law School alumni? Also, do either of you think that List of Harvard Law School alumni includes everyone ever that's graduated from Harvard Law School? --Adamant1 (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that's analogous to the current situation. Alumni lists require notable individuals so they don't become unwieldy, and we definitely wouldn't include something self-verified from a personal website. Schools are different - per WP:LISTCRIT, you would expect to see a university on a list of universities, even if it wasn't blue-linked, and any proper university is easy to verify. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Where does WP:LISTCRIT say schools are different then other types of lists? The only place schools are mentioned is in WP:EXEMPT1E about lists of alumni in school articles. Maybe you don't think schools and people are analogous, but a private school is not a unique entity from any other company and at least in America companies are considered people. While I would otherwise consider it a stupid standard, in this case I think it applies. Because what would be the difference functionally between me as principle of a private school creating a website about said school, saying it has a certain amount of students or whatever on it so I can add the school to "list of schools in wherever", and me doing the same exact thing for myself so I can be added to List of Harvard Law School alumni? The guidelines don't make a distinction between the two. Also, why would a list of alumni be unwieldly if it contains a certain amount of graduates, but then a list of schools that contained the same exact amount of list items not be unwieldly just because it's about schools and not alumni? Also, I'm not saying you wouldn't expect "a" school to be on a list of schools, my issue is about if you would expect to see "every school ever" on a list of schools. I don't think you would. I could just as easily say the same thing about alumni of Harvard Law School though. Are you saying people wouldn't expect to a see an alumni of Harvard Law School on a list of Harvard Law School alumni? And you can't tell me there isn't sources that discuss Harvard Law School alumni. So why wouldn't it include every graduate ever based on that alone? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * LISTCRIT says that you're supposed to set list selection criteria that make sense for that specific, individual list, and not use the same criteria everywhere. And if you scroll down, you'll find that one of the "common" standards is "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group", which is exactly the situation for List of universities in Algeria:  it is feasible to create a complete list, it is feasible to verify the existence of every single one of them, and the list was short (much less than the 32K suggested limit even before you blanked two thirds of it). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weird, because when I said that context matters and that each list should be treated differently, I was ignored and people (including you) continued arguing about it and treating this like there was a standard that could be applied everywhere (verifiability alone). If that's not the case and I've actually been right this whole time, then my mind is really boggled as what we are even doing here. I've even said "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group". Weird how supposedly I didn't understand the guidelines and should be reverted due my ignorance I said it. Yet apparently your totally correct by literally saying the exact same I have. I don't see anyone here arguing with you about it or calling you wrong either. Which seems rather odd.


 * More on point, when I edited the article I didn't, and still don't, think that it is a small enough list to qualify for that particular standard. It's not like I didn't look into it either. For one, it's not a complete list because there's only 30 universities on the list when there's an "estimated" 130 universities in Alegria total, and I don't see anyone adding the rest. Also, it's worth noting that the number of universities is an "estimate." So, who knows if it will ever actually be complete. Especially since schools open and close all the time.


 * To me that standard is more applicable to things like male characters in a book or similar topics where we actually know exactly how many of them a there are instead of speculating about it, they don't frequently change, and where they will actually be added to the list. Your free to disagree though. I'm sure some people would interpret schools not currently being and never being on the list as meaning it is still complete. I don't think your or their personal interpretation of a what constitutes a complete list should have equated to all this arguing and me being reverted though, but whatever. Apparently I don't know anything about the guidelines and no one agrees with me about anything even though I've been saying exactly the same thing other people here including you have. So...What the hell do I know? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * LISTCRIT says that any page whose size is less than 32K (according to the numbers given in the page history) is "short". Editors often consider readable prose, so that "shortness" doesen't depend on whether you use citation templates, but that's a debate to be had when the raw page size exceeds 32K, which it's not even close to.
 * I don't think that universities (this list isn't about "schools", remember?) actually open and close very often. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Responses

 * No List items themselves do not need to be notable as long as they are verifiable. While a number of these African list articles need more sources to demonstrate verifiability, I believe it is a disservice to our readers to clean up these articles to only include notable entries, especially since many countries discuss the schools as a set (through accreditation procedures), and while some larger lists may only include notable entries, a list of verifiable schools shouldn't be a problem. (Please note my argument isn't that these lists shouldn't be cleaned up, just that non-notable entries are valid if properly sourced somewhere in the list article.) SportingFlyer  T · C  12:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If the standard is just "verifiability" and the reliability of the source didn't matter, then what stops someone from making a website for a private school they supposedly "created" and then posting a link to it in one of the lists in order to advertise the school or funnel clicks to a website for something that doesn't even exist? If we were inclusionary about everything and "verifiability" was the only metric, instead of the reliability of how we are verifying the school is real, there would be zero way to ward off that type of thing. It's not the standard for any other type of list related to companies either. Otherwise, anyone could externally link to anything as long as it had the companies name it and there would be nothing we could do about it. Which isn't the standard anywhere for anything. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No for a worldwide en-wiki guideline but if WikiProject Africa adopted such a policy for Africa and they invited this and other relevant WikiProjects to participate in that discussion, that would be fine. Same goes for other regions of the world and for individual countries, provided they have an active enough WikiProject to determine what local consensus really is. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  16:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Self-reply: If the question were asked about schools in parts of the world I am familiar with, I would say "no."  In those locations, there is a benefit to having a list of schools even if the schools on the list are not all notable.  The same may NOT be true in Africa, and if those who specialize in that topic area agree with the idea of keeping lists to only notable schools, who am I to object? davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  16:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking through the edit histories of at the lists for schools in Africa it seems as though non-reliable sourced entries are pretty routinely removed by a multitude of people. So, it seems to be the consensus at least for those lists that non-reliably sourced entries should not be included. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes In so far as my comment is concerned. That "verifiability" and "notability" isn't really the issue here. Items being reliably sourced is. Also, while the governments of some countries discuss schools as a set, not all governments do. It would be wrong IMO to include every school in existence in all the lists just because a few of the lists are discussed as a set by the governments of those countries. For instance, we shouldn't include every school that exists in Guyana in List of schools in Guyana just because the government of Namibia discusses their schools as a set (which I see zero evidence of anyway). What is included in each list should be evaluated on its own merits. Lists should not be 1/1 recreations of government websites either. Even in cases where they do discuss their countries schools as a set.


 * Looking at the edit history's of the lists for schools in Africa, the clear consensus there seems to be that non-reliably sourced items should not be included. Which seems to me like the correct way to go. Not just because it is the consensus, but also because it fits with the guidelines. Including WP:REDNOT and WP:NOTDIR. Wikipedia isn't a directory, things should be reliably sourced, and there's only certain instances where red links are appropriate. If all the list items are referenced to a single government website or the websites of the schools though all your doing is creating a directory. Especially if it is a list of 756 items, where none are blue linked, and all them all externally linked to school websites. Maybe in that case they are all "verified" to exist, but doing it that way is still not in line with the guidelines. Same goes for creating 764 red links for schools that are never going to have articles. Which I have yet to see a rebuttal to. Unfortunately,  and the other user involved in this have both pretty much ignored me when I have brought up the guidelines, including WP:REDNOT and WP:NOTDIR. They have mainly deflected from discussing them. Especially SportingFlyer. For whatever reason, this RfC seems to completely ignoring them. This issue likely won't be resolved without accounting for the guidelines though. Nor should it be if they aren't accounted for. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That in the list that brings us here (List of schools in Namibia) hundreds of schools are redlinked is a different issue, stemming from the pre-2017 agreement that all schools above "Primary" are notable. There is probably consensus to remove them. There is no consensus to also delete their references, the page formatting, or the entries themselves, though.--Pgallert (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The red links don't have references that would be removed. So, I have no clue what your talking about. Anyway, the guidelines are clear that red links should not be created in the first place for things that have a low chance of becoming articles. Plus, a ton of people remove red links from lists. Including admins. It's pretty uncontroversial and saying there is no consensus to do so is simply wrong. It seems like SportingFlyer isn't even against them being removed except when I'm the one removing them. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "I have no clue what your talking about." No doubt. But if you are not even reading the statements you are commenting on, the situation is unlikely to change. --Pgallert (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what your talking about, because what your saying most of the time doesn't make sense, has nothing to do with the guidelines, and are mostly personal. Just like your comment just now. Plus, you contradict yourself in every other message. So, really, there isn't anything meaningful that can be gotten out of what your saying. It will just be different next time anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No. For list items, WP:V is the relevant guideline, and all that needs to be verifiable for a List of X in Y is that indeed, A is an X in Y. Notability, and with it significant coverage, does not apply to the items of these lists. --Pgallert (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Except that's not what WP:V says. As I've said repeatedly, WP:V is clear that notability/reliable sources only aren't needed when the items are discussed as a group or set and the schools in List of schools in Namibia aren't talked about as a group or set. So, they still need to be notable/reliably sourced. I'm really at a loss as to why your unable to have a rebuttal to that or at least acknowledge that it's what the guidelines say. Your whole argument about it in the article, that schools in Namibia are a notable topic so therefore all list items are, didn't make sense either. Nowhere does WP:V imply that's the inclusion criteria. Just because actors or whatever are notable, doesn't mean that every single of them are or should be included in a list of actors. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect. Reliable sources are needed for article / list content, notability is not. But yeah, I've tried to explain this half a dozen times to you, to no avail. --Pgallert (talk) 08:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah sure, reliable sources are part of what makes something notable so they are needed, but that doesn't mean notability of list items isn't a thing. Otherwise, WP:V wouldn't use the word "notability" in relation to list items a bunch of times. But sure whatever, the guideline says notability doesn't matter because you say it doesn't. Right. As I've said a few times now, one of the main problems here is that you think this is about you "explaining" things to me. As in, giving your opinion that isn't based on anything and then expecting me to just accept it shove off. Whereas, I've given you guideline based reasons for why I'm doing things. Like WP:REDNOT Which you've ignored because you have no rebuttal to them, and instead you've turned this into a personal discussion full of your clearly wrong opinions. Like that people need consensus before they can fix dead links. Which isn't how this works. If you had of stuck to the guidelines, not made it personal, been honest, and skipped the whole WP:OWNERSHIP thing this wouldn't be an issue right now. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No: WP:LISTN 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." According to that guideline, it is possible to reduce lists to only notable items if there is a consensus for doing so, but it is also acceptable to have list items that are not independently notable. If there is a consensus here that non-notable list items are acceptable, then that's all that's required. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's 100% what I've been saying. Except with the cavet that there would have to be reliable sources dicussing them as a group or set for that notability criteria to work and there doesn't seem to be any that do. Otherwise, your just making an arguement of "inherent notability." Which I have yet to see anyone have a rubtle for. Adamant1 (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't think that anyone has ever discussed African schools? I can point you to Dilemmas of Culture in African Schools, Managing the Curriculum in South African Schools, School Environment in Nigeria, Ghana and the Philippines and so on. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't a discussion about the notability of "education in Africa" as a topic. It's about the notability of "list items." Last time I checked the guideline says the sources have to discuss "the list items as a group or set" for them to be notable. Which in this case the "list items" are specific organizations within various school systems. Not the "educational systems" themselves. Which is what the sources you provided are discussing. They would be fine for an "education in Africa" article, but it's ridiculous to say for example that all schools in Rwanda are notable as a group or set, just because one of the sources discusses "education in Africa." Without the source specifically discussing Rwanda or even specific "schools in Rwanda." That's not the standard of notability in the guidelines. Anymore then it would be for every depart store in North America to be notable as a group or set just because there's books that talk about the retail industry in North America. Let alone would depart stores in a specific region of North America be notable as group or set because "retail industry." Find some reliable sources that discuss all the schools in a specific country as a group or set though and we would be golden. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, although their reliability is pretty questionable, there's at least sources discussing specific schools as a group or set in specific sub regions of the countries and I'd be totally fine applying the guideline to say all schools could be included in say List of Oshana Schools because of it. Since that's what the intent of the guideline is. There's zero reason such articles can't be created, include all the schools from those regions in them, and then link to them from the main country lists. I'd have zero problem with that. I don't think any country list is meant to be all inclusive in the meantime though. Otherwise, there would be zero incentive to create more geographically specific lists. For instance, we could just have List of schools on planet earth and call it a day because "schools on planet earth" are talked about in sources and are "verifiable" or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So you think that nobody in Rwanda ever talks about schools in Rwanda? — Toughpigs (talk) 15:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, but "someone from Rwanda talking about "schools" in Rwanda" has nothing to do with this discussion or the guidelines. Nice use of the Motte-and-bailey fallacy though. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you're studying up on rhetorical techniques; I hope that it helps you with your arguments. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Update: I notice that in the last day, Adamant1 has decided that this RfC doesn't apply to them, and has been removing lots of entries from African school list articles, going against the growing consensus in this discussion. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There's only been two comments that aren't me, Pgallert, or SportingFlyer. One of them, davidwr, said they would be fine with keeping lists to notable items if that's what has been happening already, which it has been, and your opinion was that individual list items don't have to be notable if they are discussed in reliable sources as a set or group and they aren't. Which was the exact the same position I've been taking. So, what "growing consensus" is there that I think doesn't apply to me? Also, since when does just the mere existence of an RfC about something preclude people from doing what is being talked about in the RfC? Because last I checked it doesn't. BTW, when this RfC was started 100% my thought was that you were going to be the other person that commented and would be the one to make an issue out of this where there isn't one. So, good job proving me correct. Are you going to back track on your last statement that list items are notability if they are discussed as a group or set now that you don't have evidence that they are? Also, do you think people should be ignoring guidelines like WP:REDNOT just because two people in an RfC said something that isn't definitive or authoritative? Because 100% I think the guidelines apply to me and everyone else here. Apparently you, Pgallert, and SportingFlyer don't though. So, which guideline that me and other people are applying do you disagree with? --Adamant1 (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But they clearly are discussed as a set. For Pakistan: Schools and Schooling Practices in Pakistan, with chapter "Successful Schools: What Can We Learn From Them?", Madrassah Mirage: A Contemporary History of Islamic Schools in Pakistan, "Hearts and Minds ; In Pakistan's religious schools, tomorrow's holy warriors are prepped for conflict" from US News and World Report 2001, "How to Fix Pakistan's Schools" from Qatar Tribune 2017. For every country, there are always sources that write about schools in that country. I don't understand how you can think that nobody talks about schools in Pakistan. So, just to recap: you said "Are you going to back track on your last statement that list items are notability if they are discussed as a group or set now that you don't have evidence that they are?" I do have evidence that they are. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But the "they" that's being discussed here is about the continent of Africa more generally. Which has 54 countries of which Pakistan is only one. So, you saying I don't think the RfC applies to me just because you might have found an outliner (although it is is extremely debatable), is just hyperbolic, making this personal for no reason, and not assuming good faith. Which as usually, you go off about AGF and acting "respectfully" or whatever, but your not willing to do it yourself. More on topic, There's zero evidence every school in all the countries are discussed as a group or set and no has been willing to provide any. If they were, it would contradict the narrative that it's impossible to find sources for things anyway. Although, I'm totally willing to say, and have said, that they are likely talked about as group or set on the district level and that if people want to create district level list articles that are inclusive I'd be totally fine with that. Again, all of them are not talked about as a group or set in all countries though.


 * If you think Pakistan is an outlier, cool. Discuss it in the Pakistan articles talk page then. That said, your own sources contradict your opinion about it. "Schools and Schooling Practices in Pakistan" says it's a study of "a case" from "Northern Areas in Pakistan." It should go without saying that discussions of single cases from specific regions of the country are not discussions of "schools in Pakistan" as a group or set. The standard for when list items are discussed as a group or set is not just when the title of the essay or whatever it is says "Pakistan's schools" in it. The source has to actually discuss the schools and not just a few cases or ones in a single region. Otherwise, create a list article for those regions and include them in it. Which again, I would have zero problem with. That's how it is done in most other cases, it's what the guidelines say to do in cases like this, and it would be the reasonable way to settle this. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Err @Adamant1 neither Qatar not Pakistan are in Africa. They're both very much in Asia (over 1000km from Africa). Pakistan is pretty big, 200,000,000 people. I highly recommend visiting the subcontinent. As former British colonies both countries use English, in Pakistan it's an official language. Personally I like to know a little basic geography before I start systematically wipe out the data of a whole continent. I'm pretty sure the point ToughPigs is making though is that it really doesn't much Googling at all to find sources for just about any random country that meet your apparent standards. To me it's pretty clear that if you want to be productive in actually improving Wikipedia identifying such sources would be a good place to start. We could also seek help from folks like Wikiproject Africa for example, or really any randomer who speak local or the colonial languages (such as French, Portuguese or... English). Might also give your delete key a bit of well earned rest. LittleDwangs (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the geography and history lesson. As if I didn't know Pakistan was in Asia or that it was a former British colony. I actually have some stamps from when it was one on my computer desk. Not that it's in any way relevant to this. Anyway, ToughPigs was the one that brought it up in a discussion about schools in Africa. Which was why I told him to discuss it in the specific article. So, feel free to let him know Pakistan is Asia. Since he's the one that seems to think it's in Africa. That aside, as I've said I'm not removing items from list because of "my" standards. I'm doing it based on the guidelines. Which I guess you were to busy giving me a history lesson to take out of my other comments. I get what ToughPigs point was. The problem is that it was wrong. The sources he Googled didn't actually discuss schools from anywhere as a set or group like he claimed they did. Nor was I able to find any that did myself for any of the lists that I've edited. I've also asked other people provide them. Which they haven't. Maybe you can though. If so, cool. Feel free to present them on the talk pages of the relevant articles then. If your not willing to though, don't lecture other people on how they should do things in the meantime. I was actually the one that suggested this RfC so this could be worked out. Wikipedia guidelines in aren't based on what "any randomer" who speaks a local or "colonalist" language says to do either. I'm sorry your upset by me and other people following the guidelines. Maybe you can get them changed to fit the whims of same rando. Until then, I suggest you contribute to other discussions where you won't be so inclined to make such assertions or attack other users. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I came across a bit brash. Haven't had my morning cup of tea yet. LittleDwangs (talk) 10:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 11:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I used Pakistan as an example because Adamant1 did a big clearing yesterday on List of schools in Pakistan, taking out non-notable list items, which is the issue that we're discussing here. This conversation may be labeled "African schools", but this is WikiProject Schools, and it's the same issue. Adamant1 says that there are not reliable sources that discuss "Schools in " as a group or set. I say that there obviously are, for every country in the world. Adamant1's assertion that a published book called Schools in Pakistan does not discuss schools in Pakistan as a group is self-evidently false. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Except none of the sources you provided are called 'Schools in Pakistan'. Also, no one can rightly claim that "it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" in WP:LISTN just means that the title of the lists have to be in the titles of the sources, or that the actual content of the sources don't matter. You claiming otherwise is self-evidently false. 100% something called Schools in Pakistan isn't not necessarily going to be a discussion of 'the schools' as a group or set, and the articles in this case (that aren't called that anyway) don't discuss the schools as a group or set.


 * I'm sorry your sources turned out not to be about schools as a group or set like you claimed they were. That's not on me though. Feel free to find some that are and post them on the talk page of List of schools in Pakistan where they will be relevant and helpful. Or better yet, instead of needlessly WP:BLUDGEONing this further you could create district level list articles like I suggested. Since like I've said the schools are usually talked about as a group or set at the district or regional level. Doing so would be the clearly reasonable, guideline, and precedent based solution to this. I don't expect you or the other people that appear to be hell bent on making this a personal thing do so though. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Except none of the sources you provided are called 'Schools in Pakistan'." Schools and Schooling Practices in Pakistan. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Which isn't "'Schools in Pakistan'". Like I said, titles don't matter anyway, content does. For whatever reason these discussions always seem to devolve into meta-analysis and second-order topics. When they aren't really relevant. The "title of a source says 'Pakistan schools' in it. So, clearly Adamant1 thinks this RfC doesn't apply to them" is mainly just a red herring to distract from the actual topic of the discussion and that's really all you've been saying since you started participating in this. At this point it's WP:BLUDGEONing. I request that you reframe from it so other people can give their hopefully more relevant opinions. If you don't want to create regional or district level lists so this can actually be dealt with, or even discuss it or the guidelines, fine. That's on you. Like I said already, everything I've been doing is based on the guidelines, there's an easy guideline based way to solve this if anyone wants to do it, and if anyone has an issue with specific edits (like your problem about those made to List of schools in Pakistan) they are free to discuss them on the talk pages of the relevant articles. There isn't anything that needs to be said about it outside of that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But you clearly don't think this RfC applies to you, because you just said it doesn't. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said. Again your miss quoting me and making this a personal second-order discussion when it isn't one. What I said is that the mere exitance of an RfC does not preclude someone from doing what the RfC is about until it is resolved. Especially in this case where there is no conclusive answer. Otherwise, feel free to show me a guideline that says otherwise and I'll stop what I'm doing until it is closed. In the meantime, people are still removing red links and non-notable items from the school country lists. Which no one, including SportingFlyer, seems to have a problem with or are saying anything about. Like I said, you should stop making this personal, put down the WP:STICK and give other people a chance to participate. If you want to do something useful to this, feel free to create some regional or district level articles. Then you can put the list items in them that you feel so strongly should be included in Wikipedia. I've been saying that's the best way to deal with this based on the guidelines and precedent since before the RfC and still haven't seen any retort to why it isn't. Let alone has there been one to why the application of WP:REDNOT by me and other people is wrong. Probably because the people involved don't actually want to deal with it outside of turning this into a personal spat and treating the whole thing like a battleground.  --Adamant1 (talk) 04:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Especially in this case where there is no conclusive answer." So far, four people have said no, and only you have said yes. You requested this RfC be created, in order to determine consensus. So far, you have been unable to convince anyone that your point of view is correct. Now you've decided that getting consensus in this RfC doesn't matter to you. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to convivence anyone of anything because what's been said so far mostly agree with me. At this point your gas lighting by claiming otherwise. Davidwr said "if those who specialize in that topic area agree with the idea of keeping lists to only notable schools, who am I to object?" Which is what people outside of this RfC, including me, seem to agree on based on how the lists have been edited. And that's exactly what I've been saying. Plus, you said list items should be included if they are discussed in reliable sources as a group or set. Which, again is what I have been saying. What exactly would I be trying to convivence you or Davidwr of when we share the same opinions about this? (Which is probably why you removed the whole "no one agrees with your argument" part of your comment). Comments like yours are exactly why I think this whole thing is a bad faithed personal issue with me, instead of anyone actually wanting to work this out, because some how it's still turned into a personal problem even when it's things we agree on. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * NO. I will make one comment here, and say the proposal breaches most of the Five pillars. I respect every users right to have an opinion and to express it, but please don't repeat yourself. I respect the views and diligent hard work of users who have entered list of poorly documented schools in poorly documented countries, they are right.WP:5P4 I see it as an extreme POV to delete a single fact (true or not) preventing those users voices being heard: in this context it is a continuation of colonialism and politically abhorent..WP:5P2 I respect the views of users who see the gazeteer function of Wikipedia as valid as the specialist encyclopedia function WP:5P1. Under WP:5P3 we are told no editor owns an article and they can be brutally edited. An edit involves improving the information then writing an edit summary about what you have done and why- preferably with a reference, and that applies to each potential fact you delete not just for the ones you add. I note the WP:5P5 Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone. What is considered OTT today may become vital source material for a development elsewhere in 50 years time. The pillars do not lay down binary rules on verifying facts but say only that we must strive to verify. Blanket deletion is binary: it is the tool of dictators not wikipedians.WP:5P4 saysconsider that there are 6,199,021 other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve  Have a pleasant afternoon and fruitful editing session. ClemRutter (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * are you willing to add reliable sources to the list items so they are "verified" or does your involvement in, and care about this purely end at spouting hyperbolic criticisms of how other people are doing things like it seems to? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No per WP:NLISTITEM which states "The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists". Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * According to WP:LISTN that only seems to apply if the list items are discussed as a group or set. Otherwise, individual items have to be notable. That's why it says "with the exception of lists which restrict inclusion to notable items." So, the notability guidelines do not apply to to contents of lists, except when they do. Which you conveniently left out of your quote. Otherwise, I see no reason there would be the exception or even inclusion criteria in the first place. Maybe you have an answer to that. It doesn't negate that the list items need to be reliably sourced either. Which has been my main issue from the start of this. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * According to common sense, I estimate the likelihood that no reliable source has ever discussed the universities present in any country "as a group or set" at approximately zero. Do you genuinely think there might be a country in this world that has never once had anyone publish a newspaper or magazine article about the universities in their own country?  In the larger countries, of course, you see sources dedicated to nothing else, but even in the smallest country, I can't imagine that nobody's ever published something on The State of Higher Education, or What's Wrong with Education These Days, or talked about the effect that the latest government budget is having on all the public universities.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, see above for my conversation with A1 about Pakistan. (shrug) — Toughpigs (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There's more then 19,000 schools in Ghana. Do you seriously think List of schools in Ghana should include over 19,000 list items just because some source somewhere might have discussed the Ghanaian education system? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There are probably about 100,000 current public schools in the US, and I can't imagine that a single one has escaped the attention of the local press. Are you asking Wikipedia to believe that Ghanaian media is less interested their schools than the US media is interested in ours?
 * More pointfully, you've also been blanking verifiable content about universities in Africa, not just schools for young children. You've converted the List of schools in Ghana to a blue-links only standard (which is probably over-strict), but even if we decided that the name of every school in Ghana should be named on Wikipedia, it wouldn't have to be in a single list.  We could make a series of "List of schools in Ghana's Ashanti Region", etc., or even make short lists by administrative subdivisions (similar to a "List of schools in Bloom County", if we did the same for the US).  Content can be on Wikipedia without being in a single list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * No. Not that arbitrary questions are an argument for anything, or that "education systems" have anything to do with this anymore then "economic systems" has anything to do with the inclusion criteria for List of restaurant chains in the United States or similar lists should be. Least of which because the question asked in this RfC is "Must a school be notable to be included on a country-wide or region-wide list of schools" and "a school" is not an "education systems" The disagreement that led to the RfC was never about "education systems" either. Making it about "education systems" now is after the fact deflection. Not that WP:OSE is a valid argument when it comes to questions of notability anyway. Which again, is what this RfC is about. Really, it's a moot point anyway though because List of schools in the United States is actually Lists of schools in the United States and therefore doesn't contain any actual schools in the list. Whereas, List of schools in Ghana does. So it's not a valid comparison.


 * I will say though that Wikipedia and notability in particular is an evidence based system and I don't think making mon-evidence based, sweeping, global generalizations just so a few extra schools can be added to a list would be a good thing or in the general spirit of Wikipedia. Let alone in the spirit of how lists work. Anymore then it is in the spirit of Wikipedia to make decisions about things based on a personal judgement of someone else's or a groups interest level of a particular topic.


 * "you've also been blanking verifiable content about universities in Africa, not just schools for young children." "Blanking verifiable content" is a hyperbolic, loaded, and meaningless term IMO. It's not generally problematic to remove "verifiable content" either. Unless it's outright vandalism. Which isn't what me or the many other people who have removed non-notable entries from school lists are doing. Someone could rewrite a sentence to have less words, which would technically be "blanking verifiable content" (whatever that means), but there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. So, your going to have to be more specific about what you think the actual problem is.


 * "We could make a series of "List of schools in Ghana's Ashanti Region", etc.," Yes we can. If you read through this and the discussion on the talk page of List of schools in Namibia you'll see that I've suggested doing exactly that multiple times. Only to have the suggestion either shot down or ignored. There is zero point in regional lists if no one wants them or is hostile toward their creation. Nor would it be worth doing if the country lists are just going to be 1/1 mirrors of the regional ones anyway like it appears people want them to be. I don't think anyone should waste their time making 124 regional school lists for the 60,000 schools in Pakistan if people like ToughPigs are just going to bemoan the fact that a random 40 student school isn't in the country list when it's in the regional one. I was planning on creating them eventually, but it's kind of hard to do with all this push back and resistance to everything. Not that it would preclude there being some kind of inclusion criteria for the country lists in the meantime anyway though. So List of schools in Pakistan doesn't turn into 50,000 red links. But there's only so many hours in a day and these repeated discussions take a lot of them. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence that anyone is hostile to the creation of regional lists of schools, assuming that the existing lists have grown to a size and complexity that makes editors want to WP:SPLIT them. The hostility appears when you unilaterally blank content just because you think there's nothing wrong with removing the central content from lists.  There is a problem when "List of universities in Algeria", which is meant to be include all ~130 universities in that country, gets turned into "The 40% of the universities in Algeria that Adam decides are okay for readers to find out about". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I'd like to request that someone in charge of this project archive this discussion as un-resolved due it mainly being used as a platform for airing off-topic personal grievances and to perpetuate harassment. Clearly no one wants to resolve this or actually do anything. Outside of be critical. No one will even answer simple questions that are posed them or acknowledge what other people say if it goes against what they want. So, there's zero point in continuing the discussion. The participation has been to low to decide one or another anyway and I doubt there will be anymore opinions that aren't just full of personal attacks and side screeds.


 * From my calculation, as things currently stand there are four people (including me), who think WP:NLIST should apply, two that think "verifiability" should be the only metric, a few people that didn't give an opinion one or the other outside of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and two people (including me) who think that it should mostly be up to whoever has prior experience editing the list articles and if that means deleting non-notable entries then so be it. So, while the pure numbers seem to go toward WP:LISTN, I don't think there has been enough participation to be sure and I'm willing to call it a wash at this point so the useless, repeated obfuscation by a few clearly unreasonable users doesn't continue.


 * As an alternative to an "all or nothing" way of doing this I've posed multiple consolatory measures that would allow for a reasonable middle ground between the lists being un-maintainable, un-navigable WP:LISTCRUFT and not including some entries. No one wants to do or even acknowledge them though and apparently I'm beating a dead stick by suggesting them. Another option would be for the few people who think WP:LISTCRUFT and similar guidelines shouldn't apply to do an RfCs on the relevant talk pages to try and get the guidelines changed. I'm sure they aren't any more willing to do that then they are to stay on topic, answer simple questions, or even acknowledge that the guidelines exist in the first place. My guess that people who have repeatedly ignored the guidelines when they are brought up, except to cherry pick and take them out of context a few times, aren't going to do RfCs to get them changed. So, I don't see a way forward with this as things currently stand and therefore there's zero point in continuing the RfC, if it could even be called one. So, please archive this as not resolved. Thank you. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with this. This is an RfC on a specific question in order to resolve a conflict, and the RfC has been open for less than 30 days. Furthermore, nobody has required you to participate in this. You've also responded to every single user who has replied here. Asking it be closed because you think you're being harassed and asking it be closed in the way that you would prefer, even though as of right now you're the only yes !vote, is trying to game the system. Just relax and let the process play out. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I summarized the opinions of people that have answered there opinions about the RfC pretty well. If I've responded to everyone as you claim, then I'd know what they think. Also, anyone who reads over it can see that 99% of the messages so far have been off-topic personal grievances and not direct answers to your RfC question. The fact is that the specific question that this RfC is about is not being answered by the vast majority of participants or there messages. Period. So, what part of my summary, anything else in my message, or that do you "strongly disagree with"? Also, I don't "think" I'm being harassed. I am being harassed. Again, that should be obvious to anyone who reads through this. Despite your obviously wrong mind read, this being closed is not "how I would prefer things." What I prefer is that people honestly answer the question that you asked in the RfC question instead of lie, obfuscate, and use the RfC as a platform to bully a single user into doing things their way. Again, there's zero point zero point in having an RfC where that's 99% of the comments are. Even you can't seem to be honest about this, this is clearly related to you targeting a specific user, and your the one that started it. An RfC where the person that started it is being dishonest and using it as a way to target someone shouldn't be taken seriously.


 * I might be the only "yes" vote, but that does not mean other people who voted "no" do not agree with me. I also said I'd be fine considering this a "wash." Which is not how I'd prefer it. So, in no way am I "gaming the system." You are though by trying to use this to go with the opinions of a few clearly bias and un-reasonable people against what seems to be the general consensus here and the wider community that WP:LISTN and WP:LISTCRIT should be the standard. You don't get to override global, well established guidelines just because a few people in a local RfC agree with you that they shouldn't apply. That's the definition of "gaming the system." Personally, I could really care less if it is "the" standard, just as long there is one. From what I've seen your really the only (or main) one here that has voted who seems to think there shouldn't be a standard at all. As is evidence by the fact that you ignored my question about what you thought a good alternative to the WP:LISTCRUFT that just going on "verifiability" alone leads to. Personally, I'd be fine with this "playing out", but that's not what happening when simple questions like that would move things forward like that aren't being answered and off-topic, personally attacking messages Pgallert are being written instead. Your free to disagree though. From past experience it does seem as though you think people attacking me is a productive way to deal with issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * If we want to follow up on @Pgallert's comment about a WP:TBAN, that would have to happen at another page. We could, however, come to some agreement about whether these edits are sufficiently far from having consensus that they should all be reverted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to "follow up" with or take seriously someone like him who can't even be honest in their message. I doubt I'm going to be topic banned if the person who is saying I will be has a history of lying like he does. As far as my edits being reverted goes, I'm sure you could get clearly bias and dishonest people like him and SportingFlyer to agree with you that my edits should be reverted. I don't think that means there should be or that there it would be a guideline based way to do things. Preemptively reverting someone just because you don't like there edits, based on a criteria that you haven't even came up with yet, and against the currently existing ones would not be a good way to go IMO. Anyway, my guess is that at least half the items in the edits still won't fit whatever criteria is eventually decided on, including if it's just "verifiability", as I'm the one that's actually done research on this. I'm fine selectively adding back the ones that do fit whatever is decided on though. I was already planning to anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We could also use an RFC here to set a general standard for list selection criteria, e.g., that all "List of universities in..." pages should normally name all currently operating universities, regardless of whether an article exists, and all former universities for which an article or redirect exists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * An RfC to set a general standard for list selection criteria was what I originally thought this was going to be. Not the personally attacking crap show that's it is. So, I'd be fine with that. There are a number of possible inclusion criteria that would be better then "verifiability" alone. Which does nothing to help with WP:LISTCRUFT or navigability on it's own. I don't think your "All currently operating universities, regardless of whether an article exists, and all former universities for which an article or redirect exists" standard would not do it though, and that's not really how the "list of universities in..." articles are anyway. For instance List of universities in Canada does not contain every university that has ever existed in Canada. Whereas, Lists of American universities and colleges does not even contain every university currently existing in America. Even on the state list level including every university ever isn't the standard. For example List of colleges and universities in New York (state) only contains "recently defunct universities."
 * The fact that you think country level university list articles contain every university that ever existed, that you think they should, or that believe that's the standard, is yet another indicator of why my edits should not be reverted. Since your judgement and opinions about this are clearly not grounded in actual reality. Let alone are they in any way practical. You haven't provided a policy based justification to revert my edits either. Really, no one has provided a policy based reason at all as to why the edits were wrong. You can't just use someone else agreeing with you that my edits should be reverted to hound me. It's not OK to use faux "consensus" as an excuse or cover to commit and justify harassment. Especially if it's just because you don't like the persons edits. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Adamant1, if everyone who has voted in this RfC disagrees with you, then it's not faux "consensus"; it is actual consensus. When a Wikipedia editor is told multiple times by multiple people that something is wrong — especially when it's six "No" to one "Yes" — then you need to have the ability to step back, and consider the possibility that you might be wrong. That skill is key to being a successful Wikipedia contributor. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Except at least four people agree with me. "No" votes don't really have anything to do with it if the people who are voting "no" are saying the same exact thing I am with those votes. Your the one that's wrong because you falsely keep repeating that no one agrees with me. It seems like the key skills your missing about this are honesty and fairness. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Probably but there was never a chance of this going anywhere. You're combining two areas where people are the most IARish (or, if not "ignore," then at least erring on the side of the most lax interpretation of the rules): systemic bias and [for whatever reason] schools. We apply our core policies and the guidelines for lists in wildly varying ways depending on what subjects people feel most passionately about. For some topics we want lists to be "encyclopedic" (in the sense of some interpretation of WP:NOT, WP:LISTN, WP:CSC, etc.), and in other cases people are content to be a mirror of a government database. I don't know what a reader could possibly gain from a list of schools when it's just a bare list of names with no information whatsoever and no link to anything -- as though reproducing a government list, without the context the government website may provide, strikes a blow against the systemic bias our policies create. Perhaps it functions to highlight the actual consequences of systemic bias: how most schools in most of the world cannot hope to meet our notability and sourcing requirements. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a bare list of names is necessarily the ultimate goal. If you look at List of universities in Algeria, which he blanked a bunch of universities from, the list is a sortable table that places each university in the country's region, lists founding years, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No - Multiple lists are consolidations of non-notable schools anyway (as per the practice of redirecting non-notable schools to localities or North American school districts), so I would expect broader country-based lists to include verifiable but non-notable entries too. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Should infobox have "country= " be consistent across all school pages on Wikipedia?
Should infobox have "country= " be constant across all school pages on Wikipedia, as there are currently over 10 variations that I have found for just the school pages alone. Some variations I have seen are: United States United States of America USA US U.S. U.S. USA as well as some of the same variations without linking brackets. The questions is; Should the "country=" be U.S. on every school page in the United States? Thanks, Darkskynet (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you please clarify if the proposal is to have only the text "U.S." without a link to United States (i.e., U.S.)? Which specific infoboxes are in the scope of this proposal e.g., Template:Infobox school, Template:Infobox university? And are you planning to notify other relevant projects of this RfC e.g., WP:EDUCATION, WP:HIGHERED?
 * (I gently suggest that the RfC be withdrawn until these and other similar issues can be made clear otherwise it's going to be a messy and confusing RfC. I'd be happy to help draft it and I'm sure that other editors would, too.) ElKevbo (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not mentioned above is that this is followup to User talk:Darkskynet. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that United States not be abbreviated for consistency. Regarding infobox school - United States is what displays for country= for various abbreviations which makes edits changing United States and other variations to U.S. unhelpful, IMO. Gab4gab (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with whatever option everyone can agree on, I just assumed U.S. would be fine, but should this also be consistent with how other countries are abbreviated. eg. United Kingdom being UK or U.K. I think the abbreviations are fine since they are only seen on the markup side, the article side automatically spells out the country name for clarity for the end users of the site. Also mentioned above was if they should be a link or not? ElKevbo suggested that the RfC may need to clarified as to keep everything consistent between schools, universities, colleges, vocational school, etc.. If someone starts a new RfC that clarifies these questions since it ties into so many projects, I will withdraw this one and link to the new one. I stopped my edits that change the "country=" in the infobox when it was brought to my attention earlier today on my talk page as Red rose64 mentioned above, as i wanted this to be something everyone agrees on before I continued. Thanks for all the input everyone, Cheers, Darkskynet (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I've seen guidance (that I can't point to unfortunately) saying edits that don't change anything visible are discouraged. I guess I don't understand the value of changing thousands of articles to use consistent abbreviations that aren't seen by the reader. There are cases where the country is listed in markup separate from 'country =', as part of 'location =' for example. In those cases I would prefer to see 'United States' rather than 'U.S.' although I would move it to 'country =' myself. Not the same issue but a visible item where consistency should be a goal. Gab4gab (talk) 23:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In Template:Infobox university, the country parameter is visible to readers if it's set and the location parameter isn't set. The country parameter is used and visible to readers in most articles about colleges and universities in the United States. ElKevbo (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Gab4gab I was going through looking for phone numbers WP:NOTDIR and noticed the inconsistent, visable U.S. USA US USA. So I was changing both as I went along. Darkskynet (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I agree with what said; use United States and not abbreviate it for consistency (the full country name has to be used in the lead too). Even when you use abbreviations in the country parameter, Infobox school automatically displays the full country name, so it's unnecessary to use the abbreviation (I too "don't understand the value of changing thousands of articles to use consistent abbreviations that aren't seen by the reader"). If the country is in the location parameter, I move this to the country parameter as per the documentation, which is also needed for the automatic short descriptions. Those inconsistent variations you listed, I would change them all to United States, unlinked. Best, Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the guidance, Steven (Editor) I will make the edits as you have suggested. Move the country listed in "location", to "country". As well as change any that are displayed incorrectly in article view because of inconsistent variations. I will unlink country for any that are. And continue to remove phone numbers, fax, etc. as per WP:NOTDIR. If this is acceptable I will remove the RfC. Cheers, Darkskynet (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't fully read the above, but MOS:USA may be relevant here. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 10:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * MOS:NOTUSA was what originally caused me to notice the visual differences. And started me on the edit spree. But it makes sense as mentioned above to only change it on the article side visible to the endusers. I would like the non visible side to be consistent, but others above were worried about using more server bandwidth than needed. Darkskynet (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone for the replies, I have removed the RfC and closed the discussion. Feel free to continue to reply if anyone has further questions. Or message my talk page. Cheers, Darkskynet (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Hanley High School, Stoke-on-Trent
Came across this one in draft (via Harriet Slater, who attended the school). There is a note from the editor who created the draft on the Talk page, and it looks as if they could do with help to improve it.

On a brief look, it looks as if the issues may be some original research (via logbook) and that the sources could be improved. The school was open between 1894 and 1970, so there is likely to be quite a bit out there in paper sources. I will have a look when I can get to it, but it may not be for a while, so thought I would highlight it to others. Tacyarg (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Former Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association members has been nominated for merging to
Category:Former Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association members has been nominated for merging to. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

FAR nomination of Baltimore City College
I have nominated Baltimore City College for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Is the article I created notable?
Today I created the article for Rejoice Christian School. I assumed that it is notable because it received a lot of significant coverage at the national level. However, the reviewer tagged it because he thought WP:PERSISTENCE applied. Everything in the article is reliably sourced. What does everyone here think of this? Doesn't WP:NGO apply? Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have put my thoughts on the article's talk page, as a reply to  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  22:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Should Winfield Independent School District be de-merged from Winfield, Texas?
See Talk:Winfield, Texas on the question of whether Winfield Independent School District be de-merged from Winfield, Texas. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Curie Metropolitan High School#Musicality
I'm wondering what some others think about Curie Metropolitan High School. It's unsourced (which is a problem, but probably not insurmountable) for starters, but it also seem to be a bit UNDUE and perhaps a bit of Namechecking. Maybe this would fit better in a larger section about extra-curricular activities, but a stand-alone section seems a bit of a stretch (at least it does to me). There's also the fact that the section was added as the first and only edit of, a SPA that has been soft blocked for a username violation. — Marchjuly (talk) 15:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * the first job to do is the WP:RS(or. There are three sections with none. Ideally it will be independant of the school. Now we can join in and help. Internationalise, go through and explain what some of the acronyms and jargon means in a Chicago context. In the UK we want to know about the kids in the intake, levels of deprivation, academic outcomes. Music occurs in the curriculum and as an extra curricular activity. (or co-curriculum ) I found Musicality fine- though as the article develops it may become ===Musicality===. This is now on my watchlist, so go ahead and edit- and I'll come in and change any accidents. But do Google the school first for sources.ClemRutter (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I stumbled upon the article while looking up something else and then noticed the "Musciality" section. I was going to just remove it outright, but decided to see what some others thought first. I did a brief Google search and did find some sources that could possible be used like this and this, but then I also found this and this (which aren't as pleasent types of coverage). Many schools have non-athletic clubs or activities that competitions and win awards; I'm not sure, however, whether they need their own separate sections or whether they would be better as part of a larger more general section. It seems obvious (at least to me) that the account which added the info back in 2016 probably was connected to the group in some way, and some might argue that the content should be removed for just that reason alone. If, however, there's a way to clean it up and incorporate it into the article because it's deemed encyclopedically relevant to the reader's understanding of the school (and not just a mini COATRACK addition), then I'm all for that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was so patronising! I have followed the links and it is gratifying to see how similar US schools are to ones I worked in the UK. I had a brilliant headteacher who disappeared overnight and we were told not to attempt to contact him. I had a head of music who didn even know what other subjects were taught. Concerts and trips all over the place- her family took away her personal credit card as they didn't trust her with money. All this stuff is very important to the ethos of the school so can be done done in detail. In the UK, where parents have a degree of choice, a murder will depress the intake, a musical reputation will increase the intake and skew the demographic to the more advantaged. We can easily integrate it when we written the material- or it can go in twice- firstly in a ==co-curriculum== section, and then in a ==tragedy==  section at the bottom.ClemRutter (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The question was specific to this one section, not the article in general, and why should an article about an American school be "internationalised?
 * As it stands this is unsourced content about a seemingly non-notable group. Short, sourced mention in a larger section (Arts or Activities) should be OK, but we probably don't even need a subheader, and if we do "Musicality" is terrible. One has to read the section to find that it is a musical group, rather than a flowery description of some quality of the school.
 * We don't mention teacher's names.
 * RE the grant: What was it for, and why the name dropping for Gina Rodriguez? It appears she has no connection to the school and she does not need to be mentioned. I can't tell if this grant is worth mentioning without more info. Ordinary grants are nothing special, but this sounds like it could be something more, given who gave it. Meters (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Entire section now removed by IP . I have no objection to the removal. Meters (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see we are not going to agree, but a few points. I am continually reminding editors that this is not a GA review, at this stage it is more helpful to either fix it, or leave a comment. Wikipedia is read internationally so should be written to be understandable outside our own patch. I object on principle to IPs doing large deletions particularly when they have a good understanding of wiki principles- the correct procedure is for them to take it to the talk page- similarly I refrain from editing US articles unless severely goaded. It is wiki style not to mention individual teachers- but there is a fine line as to when a teacher becomes a criminal, and we often use a ==controversy== section. But remember WP:BLP. A better way forward is obviously to improve the whole article.ClemRutter (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I didn't find your initial reply to my question patronizing in any way. I also understand what you're saying about Wikipedia being read by people from around the world, but I'm not sure how much can be done to make an article about a US high school more internationalized. I also don't think there's anything wrong with an IP being WP:BOLD. IPs aren't required to pre-discuss any edits they feel need to be made any more than a registered account is. I'll agree that sometimes it's better to be WP:CAUTIOUS, particularly regarding a major change, but it's not required and it isn't automatically incorrect when it's not done. If you disagree with the removal and want to take a shot at improving the section, you can be BOLD and try to do so. Personally, I tend to agree with what Meters posted above about the section being a bit UNDUE and was, to be honest, tempted to remove it outright by myself, especially after figuring out it was likely added by a COI editor. If, however, a better way can be figure out how to incorporate the content, then that's OK with me. My original question was actually about this one particular section, but of course improving the article overall would be a good thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Category:High schools and secondary schools by country
Dear all, there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion which is about whether the terminology be standardized across countries to high schools or secondary schools. TSventon (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC).

Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 April 20 § Template:Merge school
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 April 20 § Template:Merge school. --Trialpears (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

San Marcos High School (Santa Barbara, California)
Would someone mind taking a look at San Marcos High School (Santa Barbara, California) and assessing it? For some reason, a WPSCHOOLS WikiProject banner never got added to the talk page until I did so a few minutes ago. The article has a lot of unsourced content that might need some trimming; moreover, I'm not too sure about the "Student Ethnicity" info in San Marcos High School (Santa Barbara, California). It seems like such info would become quickly dated and require (at least) yearly updating; I can see some value in more of an historical overview such as how the make up of the student body may have changed over the years, but simply listing the statistic for one particular year (even the most recent school year) seems, in my opinion, to not have much encyclopedic value. It also looks like there might have been some COI editing Over the years (e.g. students, teachers, staff), but probably nothing to egregious that can't be cleaned up through some copyediting, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I used Rarer to assess this article, but almost the entire text is uncourced! So I deleted the assessments, which can be re-entered once the article has some semblance of reliable sourcing. Feeling crabby. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

RADAR
Members of this WikiProject may be interested in my new tool which can detect promotion in articles about schools.


 * Click here to try it out (link will begin working shortly). Select the "School" under the subject filter to see only articles about schools.


 * Click here for instructional videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam at Megaputer (talk • contribs) 18:45, April 6, 2021 (UTC)
 * Link is not accessible, and the user is a paid account and an alternative account of a non-disclosed other account. See userpage and . User is indef'ed under WP:PROJSOCK Meters (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Is Niche a reliable source?
Niche (company) provides rankings of schools, based on reviews and an unexplained statistical analysis, which refers only to school districts. I recall a brief earlier conversation with someone in the Wiki Schools project (maybe John from Idegon?) who said it was not considered a reliable source. I found only one unanswered query on the RS noticeboard. There are quite a few existing articles that cite the Niche rankings... Any thoughts? Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that Niche's methodology is to gather data from reliable, publicly available sources (like reports from states' departments of education) and combine it with reviews Niche receives from parents/students. The combined data is algorithmically-processed to create letter grades and rankings for specific attributes of schools and school systems, like "safety" or "best teachers". For "hard facts" about schools (like total student enrollment) I would always prefer citations to NCES or the original report from a state department of education instead of Niche. I personally believe a Niche letter grade isn't a useful datapoint, but I think the rankings can sometimes provide useful context. Said another way -- sometimes school articles feel very similar, and a high ranking from Niche could help express a unique characteristic of a school that might otherwise be difficult to find a citation for. One challenge is that Niche seems to update the rankings each year, and the new rankings completely replace the old ones -- maybe the annual changes would make it too messy to cite? --Hebisddave (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, Would a statement like "According to Niche, XX school is the number one overall private high school" or "number one best high school for STEM in the state" cross the line as advertising/puffery under WP:PROMO? If the rankings rely upon parent and student reviews, user bias is inherent in that ranking. If the rankings "algorithmically" fold in hard data points to compare with other schools like the number of regional science fair winners or percentage of graduates who continue on to PhDs, those data points would be better used than a ranking comparison. I've not found on the Niche site what gets folded into the rankings, which is the source of my question about reliability. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just found the Where our data comes from page. Check the note at the bottom of that page, "Niche K-12 Data Update through Niche Partner Accounts. A Niche Partner Account is administered to school representatives giving them access to add or update data related to their school. Claim Your School to get access to manage your profile and update your data." Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's a generic page about Niche's K-12 content. To see the methodology for specific rankings, first open the ranking page (such as https://www.niche.com/k12/search/best-school-districts/). Near the very top, there is a short paragraph about the ranking -- you may have to click "More" to see the entire paragraph. At the end of the paragraph, there usually seems to be a linked sentence like " Read more on how this ranking was calculated" which will take you to the detailed list of datasources and weighting for each ranking (such as https://www.niche.com/about/methodology/best-school-districts/). I don't believe the data provided by schools through Niche Partner Accounts is used in the rankings, which I agree could be a potential red flag if it were the case. My personal take -- which may not be fully aware of current Wikipedia norms -- is that reviews as a datapoint in ranking methodology would not automatically disqualify Niche as a source. Of course, it's important to label the ranking's source in the article, like your example statement does. You're raising good questions and maybe there isn't a universal answer; hopefully some other folks will weigh in as well. --Hebisddave (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * What about WP:DUE? Even if a source is completely reliable, we are not obligated to cite it. I don't know much about the k-12 world but to the best of my knowledge the Niche rankings are not commonly cited, discussed, or examined by higher education experts and scholars. I think it would be fair to extend that statement to all of the Internet-based rankings created in the past decade or so, most of which rely solely on publicly available data and exist primarily or exclusively to sell ads on the publishing website (which can also be said of most other rankings but at least USN&WR and Washington Monthly engage with experts and scholars). ElKevbo (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Private and public schools in China - Request for reassessment
Hi everyone, I am new to Wikipedia editing and have been working on the article, the Private and public schools in China as part of my university course. I’d appreciate any advice about how I could improve the article, and am seeking its re-assessment from a stub article, since I have added a significant amount of information. Thanks! Karengmc (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi,, welcome to editing Wikipedia! I used the Rater program to reassess the page, and left a message for you on the article's talk page-- please don't hesitate to contact me or leave a note here if you have other questions. Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

FAR for History of Baltimore City College
I have nominated History of Baltimore City College for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

School branding
Just come across School branding. It reads promotional to me and is poorly sourced. I wondered about hacking out some of the stuff about eg the history of branding (goes back to 1100 BCE apparently), which does not appear relevant, but as the article is mainly US-based and not my area of expertise I thought I'd better not without bringing it here. I also wondered whether it should go to AfD, as most of the sources are commercial sites. The article as it currently exists has been largely unchanged since 2012. I had a look for better sources and couldn't find anything that doesn't look promotional. It doesn't help that it's muddled about its focus (schools, colleges, universities, at one point even students' own branding). Tacyarg (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Good find. It looks like one user created the article as a way add links to a marketing firm they work for. The content doesn't seem useful or salvagable, and the article has existed since October 2012 and there is nothing in the "What links here" list. I would vote for deletion. --Hebisddave (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, yes. Couldn't see anything of interest to save.--ClemRutter (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. Delete -- Alarics (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would recommend AfD as the article has been around for almost nine years. TSventon (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A quick search for books related to "school branding" found one book for sure, another looks promising and some other material looks useful as sources. Searching for "branding, education organizations" got me a long list of writings with some outside of the US material. There seems to be plenty of source material available to demonstrate notability. Perhaps the article would better be labeled "Education branding" as it's been mentioned that the scope is beyond schools as we use the term in this project. Gab4gab (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Lets sort out the problem not rewrite the page. As a term school branding is nonsense. If you are talking about psychological techniques to increase the roll. or skew the roll so they attract brighter-more problem free students (in societies where school transfer contains an element of student parental choice)-that would be a great article- this is not what we have here. There are plenty of PR companies that are willing to create mythical schools-design logos etc- they use the term school branding, maybe we need to do an expose WP:OR on the PR companies attack on school admin budgets. Any rate, the text of the article is out of scope for WP:WPSCHOOLS ClemRutter (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe something half readable could be made out of the last two sections of the article. Since there is kind of a "psychology" (for lack of a better word) to how schools pick mascots and generally brand themselves. I don't know what that half readable thing would be though or how it could be written. The other alternative is a redirect to a section about school branding in an article like Brand. I'm kind of lukewarm on that though. I hate adding questionable content to articles that are already pretty questionable themselves and Brand isn't that great. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Merged schools
When a school moves to a new campus we treat that as a continuation of the same school. When a school is renamed we treat that as a continuation of the same school. But what's the best way to handle school mergers where School A is merged into School B, and the resulting combined school, on School B's campus, is known as School C. Did School A close or move? Did School B close or was it renamed? Do we leave the articles School A and School B and start a new article School C, or do we rename School B to School C and rewrite the history to include that of School A into the article?

This can be a contentious issue for people associated with the schools, and we are not handling this consistently.

Some examples (just ones I happen to have run across, there are undoubtedly many more):
 * 1) Owen Sound Collegiate and Vocational Institute and West Hill Secondary School amalgamated to form Owen Sound District Secondary School on the West Hill Secondary School campus. Both articles list the original schools as closed, and no article exists yet for the new school.
 * 2) Riverdale High School (Quebec) and Pierrefonds Comprehensive High School merged to form Pierrefonds Community High School on the Pierrefonds Comprehensive High School campus. In this case we renamed the target article but do not discuss the history of Riverdale there other than to say that it merged.
 * 3) El Molino High School and Analy High School are being merged to form a new school on the Analy campus, with the working name West County High School. This one is in progress and is very contentious. We have students from both sides and the school board administration trying to make edits. The school board is using a temporary working name for the combined school pending a final renaming. I renamed the target article since the school's webpage is already under the new name, but that can easily be undone.

I have some stranger renaming/move cases that I don't even want to touch at this point:
 * A school moved to a new building and was given a slightly different name. Twenty years later a new school (again with a slightly different name) was created in the original building. Both schools claim to be the rightful inheritors of the original school's history.
 * A school moved to a new building and kept the original name, but due to a sudden increase in enrollment, the original school never closed, and had to be renamed. Who rightfully inherits the original school's history in this case? Meters (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Democracy Prep Public Schools
Hello, I noticed that the draft for Democracy Prep Public Schools, a large charter school operation based in NYC was rejected at AfC. Any help in improving it would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 05:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Looking for input on inclusion of material on sexual assault allegation
Articles are Trinity School at River Ridge, Trinity Schools (the religious school group) and People of Praise ‎ (the religious community) with discussion at Talk:Trinity Schools.

I'd appreciate opinions there on how much, if any, of this material should be covered, and in which article. Meters (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Material revdel'ed from multiple articles and users in question indef'ed. Meters (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Do alumni need a Wikipedia article?
I am currently involved in a content dispute at Talk:Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology regarding the addition of a name--with no Wikipedia article--to an embedded list of notable alumni.

I have been unable to locate a policy or guideline stating that names added within a school article (an embedded list) need a Wikipedia article. Previous discussions include:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Article advice/Archive 3
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Archive 17

By comparison, WP:USCITIES and WP:Settlement are more explicit about this requirement.

Your input at Talk:Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology is welcome. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Notable alumni need to be both notable and alumni. Having an biography article is good evidence of notability up until that article is deleted. Names without articles can still be notable. In some cases notability is presumed, as in the case of a member of a state legislature. When there is not presumption of notability and no article it is possible to demonstrate notability with multiple citations to independent reliable sources that provide sufficient coverage to satisfy a notability criteria. Although it is almost always better in those cases to write the article first. Gab4gab (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This leads to mini-AFD discussions every time an alumni of questionable notability is added. I'm dipping my line in the water to see if there is consensus to require all additions have an article. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I would definitely support restricting lists of alumni to people with articles. In practice, this is how nearly all alumni lists are done. Presumed notability != notability, so in order to get over the "evidence of notability" hurdle, we'd need sufficient citations to support such an article. At that point, just create the article. The number of cases where someone in an alumni list is actually notable and includes citations to demonstrate notability are so few as to provide a poor argument against such a rule. In practice, redlinks added to such links are nearly always just promotion, spam, COI, or otherwise vague allusions to notability without citations to back it up. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I support requiring an article about the individual before an entry can be added to an alumni list. Meters (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not in favour as a general rule. I think here we're talking about a redirect to another article, and this doesn't seem inappropriate to me if it's properly sourced. Redirects which could be included in such lists that I can immediately think of are murderers, where the perp's or victim's bio is included in the "murder of..." article, and band members who may have a collective bio in the band's article. I'm sure there are many other examples (Gab4gab mentions "member of a state legislature"). I think this should be left to local discussions, which I appreciate may be tiresome, or at least should be defined further. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * A redirect to an article which mentions an alumnus is not evidence of the notability of the person. Notability is not inherited. If the person is not individually notable then simply being a member of a notable group does not qualify them for an entry. I normally remove such redirects form alumni lists. Meters (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Member of a state legislature" is likely mentioned because such a member is specifically presumed to be notable. Members of notable bands or people who have been murdered in notable crimes are not presumed to be notable. Meters (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the notability guideline, "notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article" (also see Marchjuly's links below). A fact in an article about a band which says that members of the band met and formed the band at X school, is no different to the same fact in an article about the school. Just an example, Everything Everything. In fact it would be quite strange to have it removed from one article and not the other (and in case you're wondering in this case it was removed from the school's article by a reckless edit, and can be easily referenced). -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine to clarify the guidance on this in WP:ALUMNI to state alumni should have their own articles, but trying to establish it community-wide policy might be harder to do per WP:CONLEVEL without more general input from the community. The community pages with respect to this appears to be WP:NNC and possibly WP:LSC (which seems to pertain more to stand-alone lists) and WP:REDYES. There are a number of essays like WP:Namechecking and WP:WTAF which are often cited in support of individuals needing to be Wikipedia notable to be included in such lists, but they are just essays. So, unless a clear consensus is established via a well-participated RFC is established regarding notable alumni lists (particularly embedded lists) that clearly states individual entries need to have their own Wikipedia articles, I think it's going to be hard to avoid discussions like the one currently taking place on the Jefferson high school talk page. Basically, it seems like it's going to come down to local consensus regarding the inclusion of that particular person as a notable alumnus of that particular school, which means things like WP:BRD, WP:DR and WP:ONUS will be how it needs to be resolved. FWIW, I'm tempted to re-revert the re-addition of that name to the list since the ONUS is upon the person who wants to add the name to establish a consensus to do so, but that would likely just make things worse. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My standard practice on articles about schools and about populated places is to remove any entries from lists of 'Notable' alumni, residents, etc. that do not have a WP article, and a citation either in the person's article or with the entry in the 'Notable ...' list that establishes the connection of that person to the school or populated place. I also place the Template:Uw-badlistentry on the user's talk page. I know I am not alone in this practice, and have never had a complaint from another user about my doing so. I feel that this practice is wide-spread enough to be a de-facto guideline, even it it has not been written up. - Donald Albury 22:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I do. The notability guideline is about article creation. Inclusion on a given list is subject to the inclusion criteria for that list. As far as I understand it, the schools project insists on a Wikipedia article to show the alumnus's notability (or in limited circumstances, sufficient sourcing to establish that the person would undoubtedly qualify for an article if one were were written). Simply being  a member of a notable group does not cut it, any more than that argument would would be sufficient to justify creating an article about every individual member of a notable group. Meters (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I found this Editnotices/Page/St. Columba's School, Delhi threatening editnotice placed in a school article last year by an admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gab4gab (talk • contribs)
 * Looks like a reasonable warning to editors of what will happen if they add non-notable people or people with no verifiable connection to the school to the article. I suspect the tone results from having to revert many such problem additions. - Donald Albury 15:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It might be reasonable if it warned about people failing the requirements you mentioned. Instead it says "Every entry in the people's list must have an article written in the English Wikipedia" and backs that up by linking to an essay. No discussion on the article talk page where the consensus is to require an article. Editors are free to edit based on their own opinions because there is no consensus on a requirement for article before adding a name to a notable alumni list. Gab4gab (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see the style guidelines at Stand-alone lists and Manual of Style/Lists. - Donald Albury 18:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's agreed that those guidelines do not say that for school articles a notable alumni must have biography article to be included. Opinions vary. Some editors insist that every name must have an article and remove those that don't. Some editors are more flexible, allowing names without articles to remain if they clearly are notable. Do you think I've missed something? Gab4gab (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)