Template talk:Infobox school district

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.

Good examples[edit]

It would be helpful if someone would add some applicable examples of proper usage to this template's documentation. czar · · 05:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

YesY Example School District, a completely fictional example (with selected links to 'real' articles or URLs), has been added. It is doubtful that any real school district would ever include data for every parameter. Sample free labels and free text have been added.
SBaker43 (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Usage in articles about cities with education sections when the school district itself does not have its own page[edit]

User Magnolia677 (talk) and I have had a disagreement over where this template may be used. I was adding the template to a number of the education sections in articles on Massachusetts cities and towns. Most school districts (at least in Massachusetts) don't have Wikipedia pages, but even if they did the pages would mostly be stubs, which is why I argue that even though the template says that the infobox is intended for use only in school district articles, an exception should be made for school districts that don't have their own pages. Just about every Massachusetts town (and most localities in the United States for that matter) has its own section on education in the town, so it is or ought to be justifiable using the infobox there, especially if there is no corresponding school district page. - Jajhill (talk) 21:21 18 August 2015 UTC

Comment - My concern was that this template was being inserted into the education section of city articles. Usage of this template states: "this template is intended for use in school district articles". Magnolia677 (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the "This template is intended for use in school district articles" usage instruction was added in this diff in July 2011. My interpretation is that the intent was to keep the school district template from being used on school articles. I think that preventing this template from being used on city articles (and similar situations) was an unintended consequence of the wording. Other than that instruction, is there a Wikipedia best practice that would prevent the school district template from being used in the education section of a city article? If not, I suggest we adjust the usage instruction. -Hebisddave (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't really see any harm in having multiple infoboxes on a page provided they aren't too long. Wouldn't it make more sense to create a separate article for the school district however? If there aren't any objections we can amend the wording. EyeTripleE (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
We could make separate articles for the school districts, but just based on my own personal experience, unless the school district is very large, the only easily sourced information about school districts are the data that you would put in the infobox anyway, and as a result, most the of those pages would probably end up being be stubs, recommended for mergers with other articles. That's why I agree that we should just make the exception in the usage instruction. - Jajhill (talk) 16:25 6 October 2015 UTC
YesY Amended the wording slightly so that it doesn't limit use to school district articles. EyeTripleE (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
EyeTripleE, where and what exactly is the wording? - Jajhill (talk) 14:46 7 October 2015 UTC
Check this diff. EyeTripleE (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Undid the above change. This is not a consensus. Template changes, even in usage, are far reaching. There has been no discussion. An issue was raised a while back, two sides were presented. Someone agreed with the original poster a month later, the op responded. At that point, an uninvolved editor jumped in and made the change the original poster requested, without any response from the other party. There isn't enough to say there is even enough consensus here to make a change to an article, much less a template. What needs to happen a neutral notification of this discussion to be made at the main talk pages of the two projects involved, Cities and Schools, and enough time be given for all interested parties to respond. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that this issue should be decided for each settlement or at WP:WikiProject Cities. It seems strange to blanket ban non-standard usage at the template level when we don't actually know the situation in the articles it may be placed in. If using the infobox in a non-standard way improves the article I don't oppose. That said, I would think most school districts warrant their own articles and some simple page creation and copying and pasting would resolve the issue. EyeTripleE (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Notifications have been made. The original poster added the template in question to virtually every community in Massachusetts. I do not see any info presented in the infobox that is even encyclopedic for a settlement article. We would not normally talk about budgets, staff, addresses, school nicknames...any of that, in a settlement article. What guidelines (WP:USCITY) suggest is that if there are a few schools, we list them. If there are many, we list the high schools and simply enumerate the lower schools. Detailed discussion of the school district is for an article on the school district, which as EyeTripleE stated above, should in almost all cases be notable. Every school district in the US has at least two reliable, independent, secondary sources....the state DOE and NCES. Plus much local media coverage. Notability is not the problem.
A little historical perspective on use of infoboxes on Wikipedia. There have been ongoing disputes about even including infoboxes on some types of articles (notably certain classes of biographies). These disputes have become contentious to the point of several longtime editors being blocked over it. Infoboxes are clearly intended to be an "eye-catch" and a summary of an article. They are not, and never were, intended to be used as section headers. The coding in them is set up so they properly format at the top of the article. Yes there are occasions where infobox NRHP is used on a school article, along with infobox school. In those cases they should, and pretty much are, merged. Any language that allows use of an infobox designed for a certain set of articles on another type of article would require consensus at the individual page. Use of an infobox anywhere but at the top of the article is counterproductive to the reason for existence. John from Idegon (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Replying to Jajhill's opening remarks of 21:21 18 August 2015 UTC, here are my Recommendations:
  • If there is a dedicated school-district article, disallow.
  • Split the page if you can do so without creating stubs, which means disallow on the remaining city or county page.
Once the splits are done, there will be 3 common situations:
  • City-heavy article where the school district material would be a mere stub if split off: Disallow, it would be too cluttering.
  • School-district-heavy article where the non-school-district material would be a mere stub if split off: Defer to local consensus with a recommendation that the article be split and the city article be expanded.
  • Pair-o-stubs article where neither the city nor the school district would be Start-class by themselves: Defer to local consensus with a recommendation that splitting into two stubs and expanding them be considered.
In exceptional cases, existing guidelines may recommend NOT splitting an article that could be split into two non-stub articles. In these cases, look at what dominates: If the non-school-district content "dominates" then I recommend disallow, otherwise if they are about the same or if the school-district content dominates, I recommend defer to local consensus.
In any case, add documentation for template editors that they can no longer assume the page is only used on school-district articles, especially if they are adding categories (currently the only category is a maintenance category).
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Address for District Office[edit]

Should there be address fields for the district office as an alternate to location, like there is for the schools?

jbailey (talk) 06:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I would be in favor of this. EyeTripleE (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
You should now be able to include the entire address of the district office. EyeTripleE (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)