Template talk:WikiProject Schools

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Schools (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

School districts[edit]

Does this template apply to school districts as well? --Geopgeop 08:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

I have been putting this onto schools articles as and when I see them, but I noticed it uses two categories that dont exist:

Should these be created?

--Regan123 02:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. They shouldn't be red links anymore. Jh12 07:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
edited to reflect replacement category name Dbiel (Talk) 03:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:School.svg[edit]

The image Image:School.svg looks like it could do with a bit of work. The perspective is wrong and looks a bit messy, shall I work on a tidy up or replace with an image like Image:Apple-book1.svg? Richard Thompson (Talk! | Contribs) 11:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather it remain a school house (Or something else denoting a school rather than education) and preferably not one that looks like a college but the current image could definitely use some reworking. That specific image (Apple-book1.svg) is the "logo" for the education wikiproject so using it would be a little confusing. This should probably be discussed on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Schools page as that's where the most recent major changes were discussed. Adam McCormick 16:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Strange assesment banner formatting[edit]

Can't you have that assesment comment as a drop-down or something like most project assesment banners do? The current formatting is really ungainly, and at times ruins the talk page flow. Aditya Kabir 20:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I would if I knew how. Can you point me to the pages on which this has caused a problem? Adam McCormick 23:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've revamped it and it's much more stable all-around (it doesn't tranclude the main template) Adam McCormick 21:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Move[edit]

You can now use the move parameter to specify a move, may need to change namespace at some point Adam McCormick 06:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you just go ahead and move it? I don't see the point of this parameter. --kingboyk (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to, but there is an obscene amount of debate that goes into what some of these schools should be called and how they are disambiguated. This is kind of a "Hey I think this needs to be moved, but dedicated contributors can decide" way of doing things. We tried it your way and caught a whole lot of flak from alumni and "friends" of specific pages. Adam McCormick (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems to be broken right now (For example, see Talk:Denbigh High School, Luton) -- Ratarsed (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems to be broken, I'll be looking into it in an hour or so if noone gets there first. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Took longer than intended, but I've got a working version. Now just waiting on admin. Adam McCormick (talk) 06:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Should be fixed, let me know if more needs to be done. Adam McCormick (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

{{WPSchoolsAssessment}}[edit]

I have been building this template in parallel and I think its extra features are now sufficiently hidden. I will be merging it back into this template unless there are any objections raised. There should be no visually appreciable difference. Adam McCormick 17:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Needs infobox[edit]

Articles that were rated before this feature was added are now marked as needing an infobox because it's the default setting. Could someone please change this (or I'll see if I can do it when I have more time)? WODUP 19:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. WODUP 05:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
There are a significant number of assessments which operate on the assumption that the default is yes as well. I'm reverting it unless there's a better reason. Adam McCormick 18:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I am in the process of writing a bot which will make this problem moot. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BoxCrawler for my request. Adam McCormick 18:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Bot has been approved-ish and will run through all 8000+ articles tinight and into tomorrow. I'll let everyone know in the morning when it's finished. Adam McCormick 15:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Size of Template[edit]

There has been concern from one editor concerning the amount of space this template takes up. I personally don't see it as an issue because the banner can be nested which will shrink it to a single line, but I'd prefer discussion to a revert war. Please let's discuss the "bloated" nature of this template before we slash it beyond usefulness. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Whilst i dont think the template is that big, it could be made smaller by removing the collaboration bits, i dont know of any other project that does that in their WP template. Your point about nesting them is a good one, and thats what should be done. Twenty Years 00:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WPSchools template examples[edit]

Examples of how the {{WPSchools}} template will appear under various circumstances can be seen here. There is too much space assigned to the left column pictures, which is casing the template to expand downward and take up more room than required. The template indicates that the "article has been marked as needing an infobox" even though the |needs-infobox= has not been specified or even listed. Some funky text appears below the template with all parameters are listed with no parameters active. The template does not work well when the small parameter is active. GregManninLB (talk) 00:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The "article needs infobox" bit is not really an issue because we have a bot to correctly label any page using the template. Maybe the default needs to be changed, but the average newly placed banner is on a page that does in fact need an infobox. I agree that the current collaboration bit may be unnecessary. I've never actually seen the small tag used and I agree that it looks horrendous, but I'm not sure what to do about it. I don't think that the left column is an issue. The banner is not bad off and I'd like more input before we just change it. Adam McCormick (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have put together a "Bare Bones" version in the hopes that it will appear a bit cleaner and alleviate the concern. The smaller version is User:Alanbly/WPSchools. It may have removed too much but i would be glad for any comments. Adam McCormick (talk) 03:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I've also fixed the move and category issues, so they should be merged in regardless. Adam McCormick (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I've taken a crack at the "small" version and it (and the rest of the exemplars) can be found here. Adam McCormick (talk) 05:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks better. However, there still seems to be too much space on the left and right side of Image:New School.svg in the template. That is causing the introductory text to fall over four lines. I think the code <table style="background: transparent"><tr><td width="150" align="center"> might be causing the problem and might be extraneous. Compare the upper left corner image spacing of Template:WPSchools with the upper left corner image spacing Football template and California template and you'll see what I mean. GregManninLB (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I modified User:Alanbly/WPSchools to give a more stream line appearance. I also added Class options that should cover all situations. This is similar to the changes I made at Template:WikiProject California. The examples at test seem to be OK. The "small" version works. Some of the categories are listed as "articles" when they are not articles. We should revise the following category names:

I would be happy to take care of the category renaming. -- GregManninLB (talk) 14:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The images looks better with space on the sides and even the large version of our template looks better than the football banner. The space makes it easier for the eye to parse, and while it my help to make is smaller removing it would be a mistake. But we need more input than you and I to make such a change since we disagree. Adam McCormick (talk) 03:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I've put back the space and made the class and importance case insensitive. I added needs-infobox and move parameters to the small version. the new diff is here. I don't think the one line makes much of a difference, but the extra space does. I assure you, I rewrote the Banner from scratch and, except for the style stuff which I took from the older version, nothing in the structure is extraneous. Adam McCormick (talk) 04:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The space looks horrible, and I'm all for reducing it. -- Ned Scott 04:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The reduced version does or the one above? Maybe it's just my experience with web pages, publishing, or user interface design but it looks good to me. Pardon my sarcasm, but I think we need more input. Adam McCormick (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Adam. I am fine with whatever you decide. GregManninLB (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly about it, so if you want to keep it that way, that's fine, I guess. I just.. I'm not a big fan of the extra space. -- Ned Scott 01:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Talk page templates provides a link to the "coffeeroll style" template discussion. WikiProject Council/Guide/Technical notes provides some code as well. Since Alanbly is the one maintaining the WPSchools template, again I'm fine with whatever Adam decides. GregManninLB (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I've brought it up to compliance and reorganized a bit I'm going to ask that it be moved over. Thanks for the input! Adam McCormick (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Needs-infobox[edit]

Is it worth ignoring the "needs-infobox" parameter and treating it as a no, if the class parameter is set to "cat" (or "template")? In addition, is it worth allowing it to have some kind of splits, possibly in line with the stub classes (so for an article that would need an 'Infobox UK school', set to 'UK') -- I imagine this would be relatively easy for a bot to calculate too (So, in the above example, any page that is in, or has as a ancestor category, 'Schools in the United Kingdom'; I only suggest, as the category has over 12,000 pages in it now... -- Ratarsed (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you make a more specific proposal? Nothing you're saying sounds hard but I'm a little confused as to what you think needs doing. Adam McCormick (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The bot already places a "no" if the page has a non-article rating. Adam McCormick (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

C-Class[edit]

I'm just putting a note here so that C-class is add properly so that the Bot may correctly process it. Calebrw (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We should be fully compliant as soon as I can get the new template revision pulled over. Adam McCormick (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Great work. Thanks. Calebrw (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Need an edit[edit]

{{editprotected}} I have made several additions to the template to include more robust handling of different page types, the C-Class and responded to several comments. The updated version is located at User:Alanbly/WPSchools and example usage may be found here. PLease note that the protection template is commented out and should be uncommented when moving the content over. Thanks Adam McCormick (talk) 03:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Done Happymelon 09:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Bug?[edit]

I noticed this: Talk:Friends School Haverford

The "[[Category:School articles without infoboxes|]]" is not added properly. Calebrw (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. When I removed the extra parameters, the category appeared. See the old edit for how it looked before --Jh12 (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll look into it. I think this means that "page" was specified as a space or tab, I'll look into putting through a fix. Adam McCormick (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I have corrected this error and the fix is posted to User:Alanbly/WPSchools. Thanks Adam McCormick (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Category Bug[edit]

{{editprotected}} The "importance" parameter is hidden for non-article assessments, I've updated the categories to reflect this. The fixed version is at User:Alanbly/WPSchools. Thanks and let me know if there are any issues. Adam McCormick (talk) 00:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, please let me know if there are any issues. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

New Category Bug[edit]

Some of the new edits removed the addition of Stub and Start articles to their importance category I believe the following change needs to be made
Old:

-->{{#switch:{{lc:{{{class|}}}}}
|start|stub|dab|disambig|disambiguation|cat|category|image|na=
|fa|fl|ga|gl|a|b|c|start|stub|list
|#default={{#switch:{{lc:{{{importance|}}}}}

New:

-->{{#switch:{{lc:{{{class|}}}}}
|dab|disambig|disambiguation|cat|category|image|na=
|fa|fl|ga|gl|a|b|c|start|stub|list
|#default={{#switch:{{lc:{{{importance|}}}}}

--Jh12 (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Hopefully that will solve the problem. Camaron | Chris (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It worked; many thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Template class[edit]

Is it possible to edit this template so that template class functions the same way as cat/category class?

For an example see:

Dbiel (Talk) 20:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I've fixed this and the fix is sitting at User:Alanbly/WPSchools. PLease remember to re-add {{pp-template}} when the change is moved. Thanks Adam McCormick (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Done Happymelon 22:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick fix Dbiel (Talk) 22:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

class=cat pages going to wrong category[edit]

It appears that the template is still adding pages using class=cat to Category:Category-Class school articles instead of the new Category:Category-Class school pages. can this be fixed? Dbiel (Talk) 06:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Not sure why this wasn't changed when the other cats were, but I've fixed this and the fix is sitting at User:Alanbly/WPSchools. Please remember to re-add {{pp-template}} when the change is moved. Thanks. Adam McCormick (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

2 questions[edit]

  1. With regards to |needs-infobox=, does that "field" have to be there and be empty to default to "yes"? Or, should it somehow still default to a "yes" behavior if the field is missing completely?
  2. If you use the |info= field, it shows

    Hello all, and thank you for contributing to this school article. I'm part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Assessment team, and I'm reviewing this page.

    Shouldn't the bolded part above be removed as not everyone that uses the info field is a member of that team?--Rockfang (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  1. The template only defaults to yes if an assessment has been made. This was specifically discussed at one point.
  2. If you are reviewing a page using our project's banner you are acting on behalf of our project and are therefore part of our team. There's no reason that anyone else should attach their assessment using our info parameter
Hope that helps Adam McCormick (talk) 04:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  1. Ok. When you say assessment do you mean both quality and importance? Because it wasn't showing up when I assessed the article as a stub but left the importance blank.
  2. I put this template on a stub article's talk page. I am not a part of the project. I used the info parameter to describe why the article was a stub. Your #2 response above is making me think that you only want people in your project to use the info parameter. This seems ill advised as there are certain stub articles that are clearly stubs and there is no apparent harm done in using that parameter with stubs. Is there something I'm missing?
--Rockfang (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
re #2; Anyone can add an assessment, but you should note that you're assessing the article on behalf of WikiProject Schools. This template is the project banner of WikiProject Schools. All article assessments using this template are assessed based on the criteria outlined by WikiProject Schools, which happen to match the grading scheme at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Some projects, such as WikiProject Military history, use a much more detailed and specific grading scheme, including the omission of C-class. There's absolutely no harm in assessing clear stub articles on WPSchools behalf; I would encourage it. But if you want to give additional stub advice without associating with the project at all, you may want to add it to talk pages outside of the banner and add an appropriate education stub template to the main article. Best, --Jh12 (talk) 07:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
In re #1 from RockFang. The "needs-infobox" parameter defaults to "yes" only if the "info" parameter is present. Adam McCormick (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit[edit]

{{editprotected}} This template needs to utilize {{classicon}} to add an icon to a grade.--Unionhawk Talk Review 16:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The proper way would be to make this banner use {{WPBannerMeta}}. Feel very free to prepare it in Template:WPSchools/sandbox, and once it's ready and there's consensus for the switch please request the edit again. --Amalthea 16:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I notice MSGJ (talk · contribs) was working on just that already. Please just give him time, I'm sure he'll finish it sooner or later and will make the edit himself. --Amalthea 16:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I did start a proposed conversion but have not had time either to finish it, or to raise it here yet. I do recommend converting the banner to {{WPBM}} and can certainly help with it. However the issue of having icons for the quality classes is still being discussed and so this should not be the main reason for doing this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

needs-infobox and BoxCrawler again[edit]

This template places an article in WP Schools, which covers "articles about individual schools, school districts, and some general articles". Articles of the last type, e.g. School, articles in Category:School types or Category:Associations of schools, need to be rated for quality and importance (like other articles), but have no use for infoboxes. And yet BoxCrawler will set needs-infobox to "yes" for these articles, even if it was previously "no".

Could there be some way we can declare that articles need to be rated but do not need an infobox, without having it undone by BoxCrawler? (I know about template:infobox BoxCrawler, but that seems an ugly solution for this problem.) Or could BoxCrawler just leave an explicit "no" alone? Kanguole 00:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:WPSchools/sandbox[edit]

{{edit protected}} Hi-I believe that the sandbox has a WPBM version that is ready to implement, with the full features. I'll be happy to take care of redirecting several project categories to their new names, that are commonly populated by the WPBM template. Thanks --Funandtrvl (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I made a few adjustments. For example, the attention parameter is not used by the project. And the comments subpage feature is not used, so I disabled that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

{{edit protected}}

--Request to add attention and comments parameters. If you look back at the previous version of this template, there was a "info" parameter that acted very much in the same way as the comments parameter does in the current WPBM banner. Also, the project uses "Schools articles needing expert attention" and "Schools needing cleanup" for articles in the mainspace, many projects have found that this works well in tandem w/ the attention parameter that is for the talk pages. Also, since many other projects use the standard attention & needs-infobox (already included) parameters, adding the attention parameter would enable the template to show additional article's talk pgs that weren't tagged by the other templates that are populating the expert and cleanup categories. In other words, it can't hurt and it would give the project additional tools to use; the reason the parameters may not have been used in the past by the project, are probably because it's a long-time-ago-established project (2004) and because the WPBM didn't exist back then (est. 2008?), or wasn't widely used, with its more standardized parameters, categories and features. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Why don't we ask the wikiproject what they want? Otherwise it's just a guess. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
That's always fine with me. Maybe you have something in mind? --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
[1]. Maybe you could disable the edit request while we ask for feedback? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Postponed "edit protected" request, because we are waiting for any further comments from other editors. Would like to add "attention=yes" parameter to banner for an article's talk page, which would work in tandem with "expert attention needed", which is for an article's main page. Also would like to add the "/comments" feature, that replaces and acts like the deprecated "info" parameter in the previous, non-WPBM version of the banner. It would allow any editor making an assessment to put their reasons and comments on a /subpage of the article's talk page. --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Note that the "needs-infobox=no" does not need to be added anymore to the WPBM version of the WPSchools template, it only needs to be added if the answer is: "needs-infobox=yes". --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, since the template uses Category:WikiProject Schools articles by quality, this category: Category:School articles by quality keeps getting deleted, even though it was set up as a cat redirect, so there's always red-linked categories on the WPSchools template page. Any solutions?? --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Auto-assessment parameter[edit]

Would anyone be willing to add an auto-assessment (i.e. "|auto=yes") parameter to this template for bot taggings? It would be greatly appreciated! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What kind of bot taggings do you want to add support for? Just the usual automatic stub classification (if the article is using a stub template)? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, just for tagging articles in a stub category, such as Category:South African school stubs, with "|class=stub". Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Crystal Clear action edit add.png Added. There is a category which needs creating. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! The category (Automatically assessed Schools articles) has been created. Thanks again, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Better wording[edit]

This template currently advertises the WikiProject as "an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world.". To me the word "attempt" is rather defeatist or lacking in belief that it can be done. This thought came to me seeing it in combination with {{WikiProject France}} which uses the more positive wording "a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia.". Borrowing that more active leads to a better, stronger advertisment for the merits of the project (imho).

Proposal:

  • Change: "an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world"
    • to: "a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world"

or

    • Change: "an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world"
"a collaborative effort improve Wikipedia's coverage of schools around the world".

I don't really have a preference between the two, and have no objection to other suggestions along these lines. Thryduulf (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"collaborative effort" is a definite improvement, but I think an emphasis on "quality" rather than "coverage" is worth keeping. Kanguole 13:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
If there are no other comments in the next couple of days I'll make the change to "a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world". Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the feedback Kanguloe, I've now made the change. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

New assessment criterion[edit]

Could someone with TE rights please tweak the template to accept the class=draft. I would do it myself but I don't like tinkering with templates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)