Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:WPSCH)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Schools (Rated Project-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Public v private in the UK[edit]

Has a definitive decision ever been made with regard to the above issue? Throughout the UK it is clearly understood that, for example, Eton College is a Public school (United Kingdom), a term that in fact indicates private status. User:Garageland66 is changing many articles on UK public schools, without consensus as far as I can see, to call them private schools.Paste Let’s have a chat. 08:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

My aim is consistency. Every Wiki article on private schools in the U.S., in Europe and accross the developed world, describes private schools as 'private schools'. It's inconsistent and likely to cause confusion if that consistency is not applied to the U.K. (Garageland66 (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC))

This does not need a great discussion, Garageland66. Your kind of 'consistency' is inadmissible PoV. In England they talk English and use British English expressions and terminology. What they do where you come from is up to you, but you must respect different cultures and not change their language for them. Other people have tried here and they quickly got themselves blocked or banned. I suggest you spend some time reading our policies and guidelines, getting some editing experience, and perhaps also broadening your world view. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Agree 100% with Kudpung regarding British English. I acknowledge that it is a silly Britishism, but nevertheless it is what it is. Note that I do not go around correcting aluminum (sic) in US english based articles. Roxy the dog. bark 13:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
There seems to be an desire to strip articles of accuracy and truth in order to fulfil this POV. A lot of this fuss could be avoided if the consistency pushers just read a few Wikipedia articles Public school (United Kingdom) for example. The Public Schools Act 1868 is quite clear about what a public school should be. Rugby School alone predates US local usage of the term by 3 centuries any later use of the term 'public'. More recently, the Public Schools Yearbook was published for the first time in 1889. To clarify the issue, if the school is state-funded, or not public because it is funded by the state but not open to all of the public (faith-school) perhaps that should be stated. ClemRutter (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it important that we're clear as to Garageland66's aim. His objective is not consistency, in order to address an alleged, but totally unproven, confusion - it's a very clear POV agenda. His repeated edit summary "Honesty please" demonstrates not only his motivation, but his disregard for a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia, NPOV. It isn't about what he, or I, think, it's about what the sources say. KJP1 (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
This isn’t a language issue. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a dictionary. The terms ‘independent’ and ‘private’ mean the same thing in British English, American English, Australian English etc. The issue is accuracy and truthfulness.(Garageland66 (talk) 13:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC))
Garageland66, IMO, This is quite clearly a defiant demonstration of non respect for the multiple cultures that are represented by this English language Wikipedia. If the disruption continues the issue will be escalated to an appropriate venue where administrators will have the final word. This does not preclude interim preventative measures. Please see the official messages on your talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
As I've explained, this has nothing to do with language and culture. This is an issue of clarity, accuracy and consistency. If, for you, it is an issue of language and wording, I have responded by compromising and including both words 'independent' and 'private'. I would plead with you to respond to this attempt at compromise and ask you why you don't want the word 'private' included? Can you provide evidence that these schools are not private? (Garageland66 (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC))
If you continue on this disruptive course, I expect that measures against your behaviour will be called for. Roxy the dog. bark 15:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Garageland66, you're fighting an unwinnable war. It's a long held concensus here that we write about geographically specific topics in the local English dialect. As little sense as it makes to us Americans, that is the phraseology used in Britain. If you wish to change that, you should argue your position at WP:ENGVAR. Hopefully after you get back from your block, you'll realize edit warring over it on various school articles is not going to achieve what you want. I'm going to join with everyone else that has commented here and ask to to stop. Your position has zero support. Continuing on the course you were on prior to your block will only lead to longer blocks. John from Idegon (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

By way of information, User:Garageland66's original description on his user page as "Communist, trades-unionist and anti-austerity campaigner", and his edit history, make me 99.9% certain that he is a Brit, like me. His motivation is not linguistic, it's entirely political. KJP1 (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
@Garageland66: I'll put it this way, then. Maybe you think it's wrong that the word "public school" in the UK is being used in this way. Remember Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words we can't tell people that "this usage is wrong, it should be this." We need to reflect the existing language usage in society. We only change our terminology/vocabulary after society has already done so. Because British society uses "public school" in this manner, Wikipedia should use "public school" in that manner for UK articles until after the language terminology has already changed in mass society. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
There is an obvious overwhelming consensus that we shall use "public school" on British school articles in just the manner we have been. It appears clear enough to me that Garageland66 should consider himself bound by this concensus and any further disruptive editing in this area should be cause for further administrative action. John from Idegon (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you everyone for upholding our Wikipedia principles especially project coord Tedder who without any further ado went ahead and did the right thing, which has also avoided a possible time wasting peanut gallery shoot out. Help with a clean up would be very much appreciated and I've already reduced the PP at Winchester. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hello, all, I've reverted all of the following articles back to a point before Garageland and certain suspicious IP users became interested in them:

There are a few others which I've put a watch on. I don't think any action is needed with them at the moment. Thanks. Jack | talk page 13:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the notability of secondary schools[edit]

An RfC on the notability of secondary schools has been opened. You can comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on secondary school notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Student demographics guidance[edit]

Should student demographics be included in school (and school district / school system) articles? If yes, how should they be included? By demographics, I mean race/ethnicity, economically disadvantaged percentage, and similar current statistics that can be cited from reliable sources. Some examples:

If what I did with Kennedale ISD looks OK, I'll try to keep adding similar sections to other Texas high schools / school districts. --Hebisddave (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, every school and district should have a section on demographics. I always title it "Demographics". My preference would be to not include standardized test results there. If covered in an article (the utility of which would be a seperate discussion), test results should be under "Academics". Independent sources should be used. Here is where we get into difficulties. In most cases, there are choices for which source to use. As it gives information in standard format for almost every school public and private across the whole country, I prefer stats to be sourced to the NCES; however, the state DOE generally (not sure for Texas) also conveniently reports demographic info. The rub with using the state figure is that some will report current year figures but most are one or two years behind. NCES is across the board two years behind, allowing level field comparisons to be made. The most up to date figure shouldn't be our priority, as we are not a reporter of news. WP:MOS seems to discourage the use of markup tables for small groups of numbers that need to be frequently changed, a grouping into which school demographics fall. I find a combo of bullet lists and prose work the best (see example). As school articles are frequently where the newest editors cut their teeth, we prefer to keep the editing skills simple. Please do add demographics to as many schools as you can. It's good solid info. Thanks, Hebisddave. John from Idegon (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! That's exactly what I needed. I'll look at adjusting the couple articles I already did, and follow this moving forward. --Hebisddave (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

School notability RfC[edit]

An RfC is taking place at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on secondary school notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge[edit]

Please see talk:Emerson Middle School (New Jersey)#Requested move 11 January 2017. It looks as if this might not be a clear cut case, so as much participation as possible is requested.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Given the results of this move, the other former high school in the district should also have the article moved from Union Hill Middle School back to Union Hill High School and the content adjusted accordingly. Exact same issues as with Emerson. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Yup. John from Idegon (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

"Friends Central Select" in Philadelphia[edit]

(See Talk:Philadelphia Public League § Friends Central? Friends Select?)

Philadelphia Public League § Members mentions "Friends Central Select" as one of the most notable private schools in the Philadelphia Interscholastic League in the first decade of the 20th century. Philadelphia today has Friends' Central School and Friends Select School, but no Friends Central Select School. Was that ancestral to either of these? If so, it should be linked, and mention made of that earlier name in the school's article.--Thnidu (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the section you mention seems to be a copyright violation to "Friends+Central+Select"&source=bl&ots=k7tpRRq609&sig=BCVLYQXbnkGwUzVZIIKTrOfAQMc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwij3-r9nNrRAhUI42MKHYmmA18Q6AEIIDAB#v=onepage&q=%22Friends%20Central%20Select%22&f=false this book, but the book may have copied us. Suggest you dig a bit deeper. The book I just mentioned is about the only other Google hit I got for "Friends Central Select". Both schools have extant websites, so I doubt they've merged. The article in question frankly stinks. Suggest you be bold and fix it. An article on an athletic conference that does not even list its members is a pretty poor article. If you decide to do that, please reference your work. If earlier editors had done even a poor job of that, perhaps the answers you seek would be clearer. John from Idegon (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement![edit]

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Hello,
Please note that Secondary school, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team