Wikipedia talk:Schools: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Tag: |
|||
| (25 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProject Disambiguation}} |
|||
{{Notice|For questions and discussions relating to school articles in general, it is usually more appropriate to start a threat at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools]], which exists for that purpose and gets significantly more traffic.}} |
{{Notice|For questions and discussions relating to school articles in general, it is usually more appropriate to start a threat at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools]], which exists for that purpose and gets significantly more traffic.}} |
||
{{Talk header|WT:SCHOOL|WT:SCHOOLS}} |
{{Talk header|WT:SCHOOL|WT:SCHOOLS}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell| |
|||
{{WikiProject Disambiguation}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Schools}} |
{{WikiProject Schools}} |
||
}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
||
| Line 13: | Line 15: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
== [[Jack and Jill School]] == |
|||
==A follow-up note== |
|||
Although this guideline failed to reach consensus, there is a reasonable solution under existing precedent. Since all towns and villages, no matter how small are notable, it follows that all [[School district]]s are notable, since they are a geo-political area usually larger than a single town, and often incorporating several towns. So in the context of the article about the school district, all of the individual schools, both present and past, are worthy of mention, at least in a list with a short attribution. How much coverage each school gets in the district article is based on how much relevant [[WP:ATT]] material is available. If the content for a single school out-grows the school district article, then a separate article is appropriate based on normal split/merge guidelines. Similarly, a short article about a school should be merged into a general article on the school system. So there is no need for a separate guideline. The current policies and guidelines are sufficient. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 13:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
*Editors from other countries have pointed out that "school districts" may not mean the same thing (or anything) outside the U.S. However, for U.S. schools, I think that this would be a reasonable starting point. There are communities where it might be more useful for the typical reader to have schools discussed in locality articles, but thorough coverage of almost any school or school district would be disproportionate to the rest of the coverage in most city or town articles. |
|||
:I have partly finished the school district experiment that I described above. Using most of the readily available data from the [[National Center for Education Statistics]] and a limited amount from the [[Sausalito Marin City School District]] website, I created the district article, with separate sections for the three schools currently run by the district. There are many secondary sources that I will use to expand this, including a long analysis from the Hover Institute and dozens of lengthy newspaper reports of school board elections and recalls, covering white flight and such back to the 60s. This is one of the two or three highest cost districts in California (more than $20,000 per year per student) with the lowest performance in Marin County and the highest percentage of school-age children educated outside of the public school system, so it is as "notable" as anybody could want. Despite all that, I think that the article could stand as it is quite well. It's pretty dry right now, but even if it didn't have any of the history I found, it would gradually pick up some local color.--[[User:Hjal|Hjal]] 17:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:*For places where there is no formal districting of schools, they can be covered in the article about the town or geographic region they draw students from, and be split out if the content warrants it. In the U.S. (and Canada), school district boundaries are often separate and distinct from other boundaries like townships and counties, so they are stand-alone geo-political units, making them generally unsuitable for merging under articles about a town. Also, there is so much publicly available source data that they can easily meet [[WP:ATT]] by themselves. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 09:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:: This 'historical' guideline does in fact already recommend that "any verifiable information might best be merged and redirected to an article about the locality or school district in which the school resides". As Dhaluza comments, this recommendation seems eminently sensible or do people perhaps have a problem with the word "verifiable". Many UK towns, eg, [[Bath, Somerset|Bath]] have a section on education and it seems quite logical to put a brief mention of a school in such a section and only have a separate article if someone is prepared to write a proper article. As far as I can gather the concept of a school district only exists in North America, and I do not feel qualified to comment on whether all American school districts are notable or not. I have noticed, however, that the quality of many of these articles is very poor. For example, [[Muscatine Community School District]] was one of the articles which was assessed in the latest batch of assessments. The assessor commented at the time "There are quite a few of these. It's difficult to believe that school districts can ever be more than stubs and low importance". Is there scope for expansion of such articles? Would it not be best to put the school in the town until a proper school district article is created rather than create yet another layer of stubs? On another point altogether, I've tidied up the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools]] page so that the article guidelines have more prominence and I've also expanded the sources section. In the process I discovered that there is a dedicated page for the placing of school alumni where a school article doesn't currently exist at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/alumni]]. This seems to be an ideal solution to the alumni problem. [[User:Dahliarose|Dahliarose]] 10:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::Most U.S. States keep large databases on schools and school districts, and this has only increased with the [[No Child Left Behind Act]]. So these articles can be expanded by referencing that data. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 10:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Please take a look at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Enterprise Independent School District|this AfD]], which brought up some good arguments in the school district debate. I think it is much more useful to merge schools into communities rather than school districts. People normally associate schools with communities rather than districts. [[User:Icemuon|Icemuon]] 10:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::As I said above, school districts often have arbitrary boundaries that do not correspond to a single community--often they include all or only parts of several. So they are distinct entities, and often need to be treated separately. [[User:Dhaluza|Dhaluza]] 10:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::::If a school article is being considered for a merge it is clearly a small article. Given this premise it can easily be merged into the the school district AND the community. In both cases there is a different context and both help one understand more about the school. [[User:David D.|David D.]] [[User talk:David D.|(Talk)]] 04:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC) |
|||
This is an elementary school. I don't think they're notable, but I'd like some additional opinions. There's a lot of sources, but they don't seem like significant coverage to me because they seem to be mainly lists of kids winning awards and that doesn't seem to set them apart from most elementary schools. Thanks. [[User:Mdtemp|Mdtemp]] ([[User talk:Mdtemp|talk]]) 19:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== Primary/Elementary schools == |
|||
There has been a few lower school Afd's where the main reason given is that lower schools are inherently not notable and need an assertion of notability. Has there been any significant discussion that has led to this being broadly accepted? [[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] 08:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes, there has. Basically every article needs to assert notability. After years of discussion a truce seems to have developed on the issue of generally including secondary schools and not including earlier schooling. Exceptions are made in both cases when notability is clearly missing for secondary schools or clearly presented for the per secondary schools. This is probably best described as consensus by default. If you want to see the bloody discussions, they are archived. Opening this can of worms is not advised. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] 18:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::Fair summary or to put it another way elementary/primary schools need a very clear assertion of notability whereas secondary schools generally survive unless notability is totally absent. [[User:TerriersFan|TerriersFan]] 17:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Deletion discussion == |
|||
==Alumni giving notability to elementary schools?== |
|||
What's the consensus on this? [[User:Corpx|Corpx]] 17:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:As with most things regarding schools there is no real consensus. Alumni, by themselves are not sufficient; however, alumni plainly help and add to the multiple sourcing. [[User:TerriersFan|TerriersFan]] 17:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
==With the many failed proposals relegated to subpages, what should remain?== |
|||
Alansohn, please explain your action. |
|||
*The rejected proposal served no purpose beyond any of the several other archived proposals, and so moving it to a subpage was appropriate. |
|||
*People go to [[WP:SCHOOL]] looking for a school notability guideline. It is sensible that they be referred to [[WP:N]]. There is no prospect for a successful new proposal, given the recent discussion at [[WT:N]]. |
|||
*What do you have against advertising the existence of myschool.wikia.com? |
|||
--[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 04:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
**The statement about meeting notability is a tautology that doesn't add anything by being stated here. There is a clear precedent setting consensus on notability of high schools, which should meaningfully be mentioned here, and using an outcome-based approach (based on the characteristics of articles that are deemed notable) rather than trying to achieve a criteria-focused approach (defining rules for notability) which has failed many times before. |
|||
***OK. If you put it that way. I won’t argue against an outcome-based approach in favour of rules. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 06:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
**We don't advertise on Wikipedia, and there seems to be no reason to start here. Besides there are thousands of school articles on Wikipedia and just over 100 on the alternative site, making Wikipedia the better choice as a repository. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] 04:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
***We do advertise syster projects. A reason is that Wikipedia attracts students and their teachers, who would like to experiment by writing an article on their own school. Such articles detract from the image of school articles in general. There is an advantage in suggesting to non-serious writers that they consider the other site. Note that I am no fan of the other site. I argued against its creation. I consider its name to be patronising. I am not surprised that little serious creation has happened there. I believe that wikipedia should aim to include serious articles on every subject, past and present, for which suitable sources exist. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] 06:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC) |
|||
There is an ongoing discussion at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unitarian Universalist Church of Kent Ohio]] that may be of interest to members of this Wikiproject. While not about a school, it does deal with some of the issues we have discussed here regarding notability of local organizations, in this case a religious congregation. Any input you can provide would be appreciated. --[[User:JonRidinger|JonRidinger]] ([[User talk:JonRidinger|talk]]) 12:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== New discussion underway - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject school consensus resolution]] == |
|||
Take a look: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject school consensus resolution]]. • <span style="font-variant:small-caps"><font color="#800080">[[User:Lawrence Cohen|Lawrence Cohen]]</font></span> 07:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== Sakuchia Badiuzzaman Dakhil Madrasah == |
|||
== Lockdowns and chemical explosions that made the news give middle schools notability? == |
|||
Should a lockdown at a middle school, or a lawsuit or an explosion give a middle school notability to get an article? --[[User:Dappl|Dappl]] ([[User talk:Dappl|talk]]) 19:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:A single incident, by itself, would not be sufficient for notability. However, middle schools will usually have other reliable sources. Consequently a combination of the sources on the event put together with other existing sources may be enough. I don't think that it is possible to generalise; as with all things, 'it depends'. [[User:TerriersFan|TerriersFan]] ([[User talk:TerriersFan|talk]]) 20:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:Given the reasons schools can be locked down for it does not establish notability. The lock down may not have anything to do with the school, it is simply a fact based on where the school is located in relation to some other incident. Now if it happens every week or something unique at the school, then maybe. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 00:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Would someone mind taking a look at [[:Sakuchia Badiuzzaman Dakhil Madrasah]]? It was recently created and it might be some kind of school. It has already been prodded for deletion once and the only source cited is not nearly be enough to satisfy [[:WP:NORG]]; however, I'm not quite sure if is notable for a stand-alone article per [[:WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES]]. Thanks in advance. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 07:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== [[:Category:School articles to be merged]] == |
|||
: I also asked about this at [[:WT:BANGLADESH#Sakuchia Badiuzzaman Dakhil Madrasah]] and another editor posted that it is a high school, so that clears up my concerns about the schools status per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 21:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== [[:Category:Princeton University alumni]] subcategories by decade?? == |
|||
This project does not seem to be very active. However, for the sake of form I'm looking at this category which at the time of writing has 584 members, and I propose to merge all those long-standing proposals for UK primary schools, since it seems uncontentious to do so. Anyone objecting will have plenty of time to let me know, because I envisage this taking some months. [[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 21:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
Does anyone know where the discussion occurred that allowed for all of the subcategories that breaks up [[:Category:Princeton University alumni]] by ''decade''? I think it's a dangerous trend to set and makes navigation unnecessarily difficult. [[User:Jrcla2|Jrcla2]] ([[User talk:Jrcla2|talk]]) 16:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
: This page is watched less than [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools]] so you may want to post this on that page as well. (Evidence: [http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/watcher.py?db=enwiki_p&titles=Wikipedia+talk%3ASchools], [http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/watcher.py?db=enwiki_p&titles=Wikipedia+talk%3AWikiProject+Schools] [[User:Camaron|Camaron<span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> Christopher]]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[User talk:Camaron|talk]]</small> 18:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks, I'll copy this over. [[User:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#0000FF">Rodhull</span>]][[User_talk:Rodhullandemu|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FF0000">andemu</span>]] 18:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== WikiProject:Higher Education == |
|||
==Notability of schools== |
|||
{{see|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fenn School}} |
|||
It seems that this WPs notability criteria [[WP:NHS]] creates anomalies in the notability of schools dependant on where they are in the world. In the above mentioned AfD debate, it has been suggested that the article should be deleted because the school only caters for up to Grade 9. If [[The Fenn School]] was in the United Kingdom, Grade 9 would make it a secondary school (children aged 11-16/17 years), and thus it would be automatically notable. |
|||
Therefore I would suggest that this WP needs to look at its notability criteria, and introduce a threshold that could be applied worldwide. I would suggest that an age based threshold would fit this. As I'm aware that general consensus is that primary schools are not automatically notable, I would suggest that any school that teaches children on 12 years of age and older should be automatically notable, with other schools decided on a case-by-case basis. |
|||
If this is adopted, it may be that school with articles previously deleted would now become notable, and the articles would need to be restored. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 09:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Your threshold is several years too low to be applied to the US. From what I know, in the UK, secondary schools serve the equivalent of grades 7-12. Only a few Arizona high schools — all in rural areas, like [[Fort Thomas High School]] or [[Morenci Junior/Senior High School]] — have that range. In addition, it would open the floodgates to hundreds upon hundreds of new junior high and middle school articles for which sourcing would be a nightmare. Grade 9 would make sense if it weren't for the fact that in some areas, the senior high schools are three-year institutions (for instance, [[Sapulpa High School]] or [[Lake Highlands High School]]). The chance of new junior high school articles would still exist — [[Mesa Public Schools]] would have had 11 new articles in its purview if not for their recent four-year-ization of their high schools. It would add up very quickly. |
|||
WP:Universities has now moved to WP:Higher Education and I have started a conversation on what follow up work is needed at [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Higher_Education#Requested_move_18_January_2020:_follow_up]]. Contributions welcome. [[User:TSventon|TSventon]] ([[User talk:TSventon|talk]]) 12:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
That is why this is my proposal: |
|||
::All discussion takes place at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools]] not here. I have duplicated your post over. --[[User:ClemRutter|ClemRutter]] ([[User talk:ClemRutter|talk]]) 19:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC) |
|||
==Discussion at [[:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education#Applied learning|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education § Applied learning]]== |
|||
'' |
|||
[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]] You are invited to join the discussion at [[:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education#Applied learning|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education § Applied learning]]. <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">[[User:Sdkb|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Sdkb'''</span>]]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>[[User talk:Sdkb|'''talk''']]</sup> 21:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)<!-- [[Template:Please see]] --> |
|||
*Schools that serve (US) grades xx-12 or their equivalents are notable. |
|||
*Schools that serve (US) grades 7-9 or 7-8 or their equivalents are not except for Blue Ribbon, etc.'' |
|||
British secondary schools fall under the 8-12 designation roughly and thus would be notable. The Fenn School, the article AfD'd, would not be. |
|||
There would also be this clause: |
|||
'' |
|||
*If the high school plans on adding grade 12 but has not done so yet (and is currently xx-10 or xx-11), the institution is notable.'' |
|||
This clause allows for the creation of new high school articles, like [[Walden Grove High School]] and [[Girls Leadership Academy of Arizona]], and for the maintenance of notability of schools opened in the last few years (like [[Campo Verde High School]] or [[Shadow Ridge High School (Arizona)|Arizona's Shadow Ridge High School]] were in 2010-11). |
|||
In addition, if the [[Kingwood Park High School|Kingwood Ninth Grade Campus]] were still around, that institution would not be notable, as it only serves grade 9, though in a context closer to secondary than primary. Now that it's a full-blown high school, it would be. (The other one was converted to a middle school which was [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timberwood Middle School|mass deleted]] last year.) [[User:Raymie|Raymie]] ([[User talk:Raymie|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Raymie|c]]) 19:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I don't see what the problem here is. This idea that the criteria for notability should include all schools that cover the same age range is ludicrous. There is no requirement that in every country in the world the notability criteria should fit exactly the same age-range. The criteria as it stands says that 'high schools' are default notable, with the definition of high school being those schools which award the equivalent of a high-school diploma. Thats a fine criteria. In theory that may mean that in the UK we should exclude 11-16 schools. And why not? |
|||
:As an aside, I don't think talking about grade X in terms of US schools is very helpful, nor does it portray a [[WP:WORLDVIEW]]. Most non-US people wouldn't have an idea what grade 9 or grade 12 is. Isn't it possible to specify an age instead? Or use a pipe link to an expalnation of the grades? Or possibly something oali=ong the lines of {{tl|convert}} to convert to age for non-US readers? [[User:Fmph|Fmph]] ([[User talk:Fmph|talk]]) 21:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::This all just more "automatically notable" garbage. It's mostly pushed by American teenagers (and, importantly, one sports coach of same) who think that since their own high school is so important to them, that all high schools must be equally important everywhere. They like to repeat the false line that "it's a high school, so it's notable", and eventually they start believing each other. |
|||
::No school is automatically notable. [[WP:ORG|The actual relevant guideline]]—notice, please, that WP:NHS is merely the latest '''failed''' proposal in the automatically-notable line—says that nothing is ever automatically notable. Schools are notable because independent reliable sources write about them. Schools are not notable because they enroll teenagers. |
|||
::This means, BTW, that a few (usually very small or non-government-run) high schools are ''not'' notable, and that many schools involving younger children ''are'' notable. The actual rules in the official guidelines care about the sources, not about the age of the students. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
I think that we should move away from thinking about notability in respect to grades/years. Besides other criteria such as Blue Ribbon/OC label, heritage listing of buildings, historicity of the school, etc., I would much rather think about notability in respect to the number of students enrolled, as this is more likely to lead to more reliable sources being able to be found for those schools. This will create a much more hard-and-fast rule for whether a school stub should be deleted or left to improve. -''<font face="Tahoma">[[User:Danjel|danjel]]</font>'' ([[User_talk:Danjel|talk to me]]) 01:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree that the age of the students is irrelevant, but so is the number of students. A school with 50 students that receives significant coverage via multiple feature-length articles in the national media is unquestionably notable. A school with 500 students that is never mentioned outside its hometown newspaper is not notable. |
|||
:There's a method to this source-obsessed madness: Independent reliable sources let us write neutral, unbiased articles. The number or age of students does not help us do anything. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Agreed. Why should core policy not apply to schools? Not age, not size, but significant coverage in reliable sources should be the criteria (for radio stations also, another area where people flaunt policy). [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 07:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::I also agree that the age of the students is absolutely irrelevant to notability, and that the primary criteria for any topic (including schools) is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. |
|||
:::Other factors (such as the number of students, the age of the school, the size of its endowment, famous alumni etc.) are certainly ''indications'' that a school is ''likely'' to be notable... but such factors would have to be WP:Verifiable (through reference to reliable sources) in order for us to mention them... so it all comes back to the existence of sources in any case. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 12:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*There are a couple of issues here. In many cases in the United States, Canada, and probably the UK and other parts of Europe), secondary schools are significantly covered, so there is a "presumption of notability". In the past, when high schools went up for deletion, sources were found that met notability in many, many cases, so few high schools end up getting deleted. That was not the case with schools which were not high schools. That is not to say that all non-high schools get or should be deleted ... there are some that meet general notability. There should not be (and to the best of my knowledge none exists) any policy that states "any K-8 building is by defeault non-notable". I agree with those saying [[WP:GNG]] is appropriate for delaing with this. |
|||
:That said ... there needs to be an understanding of what it means to be notable. Doing a G-search and finding 100 hits is not at all any evidence (in and of itself) of notability. If that were the case, nearly ANY person, building, restaurant, funeral home, etc would be notable. The Fenn School case, IMO, prompts an important question, but the issue has shifted from one of "the grades are not the reason to delete" (which is a legitimate point), to "There are 80 some-odd hits at a major newspaper" ... when there was virtually no significance to the coverage. The former is not a good reason to move for deletion, but the latter is not a good enough reason to keep. [[User:LonelyBeacon|LonelyBeacon]] ([[User talk:LonelyBeacon|talk]]) 05:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::At the very outset, I think we need a hard and fast set of criteria that a school should satisfy in order to suggest that there is, or could be, notability. I would suggest the following: |
|||
::# Reliable Sources? |
|||
::# If (1) fails then, historicity of school/assets, or a notable label (e.g. Blue Ribbon School or OC school)? |
|||
::# If (1) & (2) fail then enrolment >500 (a completely arbitrary number)? |
|||
::If Point (3) fails, then the school is almost assurably (is that a word?) not notable, and likely will never become notable. If it can satisfy point (3) then it should be able to exist as a stub until someone comes along and dedicates some time to expanding the article, because that person is likely to find 3rd party mentions of the school somewhere (in my experience, at least, schools with enrolments above 500 get more mentions in daily life). -''<font face="Tahoma">[[User:Danjel|danjel]]</font>'' ([[User_talk:Danjel|talk to me]]) 08:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::To illustrate the point that I'm making... [[Duval_High_School_(New_South_Wales)|Duval HS]] (enrolment ~750), as much as it is a high school, is '''less''' likely to ever be mentioned in an RS than the primary school, Curl Curl North PS (enrolment ~750) even if they have comparable sizes, yet the former is notable and the latter probably not (at least as things stand at the moment, noting I feel that both are notable). What about [[Peel High School]] (enrolment ~400)? [[Wee Waa]] High School (enrolment <200)? -''<font face="Tahoma">[[User:Danjel|danjel]]</font>'' ([[User_talk:Danjel|talk to me]]) 08:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::I don't understand what you are saying. Why would Duval be less likely to be mentioned than Curl Curl? Am I missing something? [[User:Fmph|Fmph]] ([[User talk:Fmph|talk]]) 09:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Oh, sorry. Relative to other primary schools in NSW, Curl Curl North PS is enormous. Simply by virtue of its relative size, it is involved in many many more things than an average primary school. Therefore, it gets mentioned in various RS's more than Duval HS. -''<font face="Tahoma">[[User:Danjel|danjel]]</font>'' ([[User_talk:Danjel|talk to me]]) 09:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I don't think we should start down the line of including the largest primary in each district, but I think that's probably not your suggestion. OTOH, if you are suggesting that an individual primary that has sufficient RS to give it notability, should have its own article, then I think most of us are with you. What we are against is the default of allowing primaries to have their own article by default. Jimbo has said that he thinks that a high school student who wants to create an article for their school should be able to do so. That is where the high school default has come from. [[User:Fmph|Fmph]] ([[User talk:Fmph|talk]]) 11:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Nope, not largest school in each district/region/etc. But yeah. My point here is that it's likely that there will be notability for a school of larger than a certain size. But if someone were to make one, it'd pretty quickly get AfD'ed and probably deleted. I would rather suggest that it be left as a stub, and that this is fine for such an article. -''<font face="Tahoma">[[User:Danjel|danjel]]</font>'' ([[User_talk:Danjel|talk to me]]) 12:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::If it's as notable as you suggest then leaving a stub is just a nonsense. Why not add the notable info? And I don't believe that an Afd would lead to deletion, '''IF''' it was sufficiently notable. So maybe that's where we differ? [[User:Fmph|Fmph]] ([[User talk:Fmph|talk]]) 13:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Because I, like many casual editors, only edit where we want to do so. If I see a mention of a particular high school somewhere, then I'll edit it into the school's article if I have the time to do so. But, and please don't interpret things into this, but there are many many more priorities in my life than wikipedia. |
|||
:::::::::I've seen plenty of school stubs get collapsed into their suburbs (per [[WP:WPSCH/AG]]) and I'm not particularly keen. I'm not too bothered (at least not bothered enough, yet, to protest), but there is an editor who is on a campaign to collapse Australian school articles into their suburbs at the moment, but it comes up pretty regularly otherwise also. I'll rescue the pages that I think are notable (e.g. [[User:Danjel/Petrie_Terrace_State_School]], which'll sit on my to do list until I find time to fix it up), but I'd prefer there to be an assumption of notability for schools with enrolments >500 so that my to do list doesn't end up looking too evil. -''<font face="Tahoma">[[User:Danjel|danjel]]</font>'' ([[User_talk:Danjel|talk to me]]) 13:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
(indent)I agree that it would be nice to have concrete rules ... and we do ... the [[WP:GNG|general notability guideline]]. The problem starts when we rely on one of the many "presumed notability" guidelines (like [[WP:ATHLETE]]). The general notability guideline is in and of itself very problmeatic, since it now allows for articles on high school athletes who will never amount to anything more than being a high school athlete (sometimes I think the presumed notability guidelines are afar better than GNG)... but I digress.<br> |
|||
I don't have an enormous problem with leaving all high schools as being presumed notable. What I wouldn't mind seeing is some kind of a deadline: once the article is created, there is a one year (arbitrary) deadline to establish real notability. If the notability cannot be established, the article is deleted and salted, and can only be recreated when reliable sources are presented to restart the article. [[User:LonelyBeacon|LonelyBeacon]] ([[User talk:LonelyBeacon|talk]]) 13:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Except that [[WP:There is no deadline]], even for providing a list of sources about a school. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::To borrow from one of our venerable editors: [[WP:There is no deadline]] is an essay, not a policy. However I would assert [[WP:CRYSTAL]] in response. If we wait a year, and no one has been able to produce a reliable source, I don't think there is much defense against deeltion (except for the "presumed notability" we are debating). I don't think anyone can get away with saying "there isn't notability today, but in three years there will be plenty of sources, so don't delete it". All I am suggesting is that if after a year (and yes, that is an arbitrary deadline), an absence of reliable sources should make any article a target for deletion. However, I fully realize that there are real circumstances that can occur where a topic may currently not be notable, and then suddenly does become notable. I would simply suggest that in deleting an article like a school, don't salt the topic ... allow it to be remade, should the sources one day become available. |
|||
::I mean, heck, I could create an article on a closed school (for example), and find no internet sources. I get busy, I forget, the article gets deleted. A few months after that, I start digging in the archives of my local paper, and find significnat coverage that meets notability. I report that, and ask that the article allow for recreation.[[User:LonelyBeacon|LonelyBeacon]] ([[User talk:LonelyBeacon|talk]]) 03:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*I would say that a good rule of thumb is at least in the US any public high school is notable, other schools need to be assesed on their own basis, with any private highschool with over say 100 students almost certainly coming in for notability. Beyond this in general coverage in 3rd party sources is a key.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 03:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Comment'''. I think we should say any school that has had its athletic teams wins a highest level sub-national competition should also win as notable.[[User:Johnpacklambert|John Pack Lambert]] ([[User talk:Johnpacklambert|talk]]) 03:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Pupils vs Students == |
|||
Can we reach some consensus (and officially document on the project page) on how "pupil" and "student" should be treated? For those studying in schools who are still in compulsory education (e.g. up to age 16 in the UK) then I have heard either word used interchangeably. However, the word "student" is always applied to those who chose to study once they are no longer compelled to do so. My strawman proposal is as follows: |
|||
* for schools which educate only those who are in compulsory education, then either "pupil" or "student" may be used, as long as this is done in a consistent manner and not mixed within an article. |
|||
* for schools which educate both those who are in compulsory education and those who choose to stay on for further study (such as advanced qualifications) then only the word "student" should used, regardless of who it is describing. |
|||
Discuss. --[[User:Bob Re-born|Bob Re-born]] ([[User talk:Bob Re-born|talk]]) 22:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:Initially this seems reasonable, but I have come up with a couple of snags. While (UK speak) I would use pupils to refer to those in KS3 and KS4, I would definitely use students for those in KS5 as described above but I can't think of a school that doesn't do KS5 thus preventing the use of pupil in KS3! Within a school prospectus both will be used- to contrast the treatment afforded to the kids. The use of student/pupil can be a subtle way to distinguish the schools ethos. --[[User:ClemRutter|ClemRutter]] ([[User talk:ClemRutter|talk]]) 23:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::: The great majority of secondary schools in Hampshire - and probably other counties - only go up to age 16, students then moving on to 6th form colleges. Would that not count as not doing KS5? [[User:Pterre|Pterre]] ([[User talk:Pterre|talk]]) 08:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:: Not having KS5 ([[Key Stage 5]] for those outside the UK this means students aged 16-18) is common - many schools in the UK don't have sixth form. As for your suggestion, I'm not against using both "pupils" for those in KS1-KS4 and "student" for those in KS5 within the same article as long as it is used correctly, but I do think it may cause confusion to readers having both. --[[User:Bob Re-born|Bob Re-born]] ([[User talk:Bob Re-born|talk]]) 00:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::From past discussions where this issue has come up (mainly on [[WP:CFD]], hence the British schools categories now sidestepping it altogether), there may be a private/state sector divide on this. Private schools are proportionally much more likely to include sixth forms and also have been resistant to a lot of the changes in terminology that have occurred in the state sector. Regarding sixth form being in schools or separate colleges in the state sector, this depends heavily on which part of the country one's in as it's usually a local decision. [[User:Timrollpickering|Timrollpickering]] ([[User talk:Timrollpickering|talk]]) 00:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::Completely understand and agree. Do you have an opinion about what we should do on Wikipedia?--[[User:Bob Re-born|Bob Re-born]] ([[User talk:Bob Re-born|talk]]) 01:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Does it need to be standardised? Why not just use the terms interchangeably? --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#996600; cursor: not-allowed;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 01:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I'd tend to agree. I'd be more inclined to see what wording is used on an individual schools website, press releases and other documentation. Certainly in my locality, the 'policy' seems to be that pupils attend primary schools and students attend secondary school.[[User:Fmph|Fmph]] ([[User talk:Fmph|talk]]) 06:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:The use of student for older children by some schools does not make the use of pupil for older children incorrect, as there does not seem to be a definitive source to indicate a specific division between the terms. A problem with the use of student is that it is sometimes used to mean specifically those attending universities and other tertiary institutions rather than those attending schools, for instance [[National Union of Students (United Kingdom)]]. Personally I would favour the use of pupil for schoolchildren to distinquish from University students but I see no problem with the use in articles of student for older children to reflect modern usage in some schools. [[User:Cjc13|Cjc13]] ([[User talk:Cjc13|talk]]) 11:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::It is never a good idea to try and standardise the description when the subjects of the discussion have spent 60+ years failing to agree. Yes there is Hampshire- but there is also Kent where I doubt if you will find a single one. The Catholic sector in some counties would opt out of secular sixth form colleges that had invaded their patch. There is no consistency in KS5 provision. I believe it was common in the private sector to refer to their inmates as scholars. While there is the [[National Union of Students (United Kingdom)]], there was also a National Union of School Students, which may still exist. Historically there was a different stream of funding for FE colleges (which included Sixth Form Colleges). Terms and conditions of service were different, pension provisions were different- one was staffed by qualified teachers while the other was staffed by lecturers who didn't need any teacher qualification or academic degree, though frequently had both. Its not surprising that pastoral support given in a college to the students was different to that given in a school to the pupils. Schools would try to emphasise the maturity of the older students by using that term.... Local usage should guide how the Wikipedia article is written. We cope with favor, behavior and color so we can easily take on board the subtle nuances of scholar, pupil and student using the same techniques. --[[User:ClemRutter|ClemRutter]] ([[User talk:ClemRutter|talk]]) 23:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::I am in favour of allowing local variations but at the moment these variations are being surpressed as regards the naming of categories. Many categories that used "Former pupils" have been changed and a number of categories that used the Old Fooian format are in the process of being changed to "People educated at", for instance see [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 6#Another 20 ambiguous Old Fooians|this debate]]. The changes do not reflect local usage. There do not seem to be any sources for use of "People educated at". [[User:Cjc13|Cjc13]] ([[User talk:Cjc13|talk]]) 12:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::The comments about categories are irrelevant to this discussion. As Cjc13 well knows: |
|||
::::#A large part of the work undertaken at CfD is, and has long been, a process of striving for consistency and clarity in category names, for the convenience of both readers and editors. |
|||
::::#"People educated at" was a format adopted at CfD in 2011, to standardise on a common alternative after years of sterile disputes over the respective merits of "pupils" vs "students" vs "alumni". The discussions are at: [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9#Former_students_by_secondary_school_in_Australia|Feb 9]], [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 17#Former_pupils_of_Scottish_and_Welsh_schools|July 17]], [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 30#Alumni_of_schools_in_Wales|July 30]], [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 1#Alumni_of_Scottish_schools|August 1]], [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 8#Alumni_of_schools_in_England|August 8]], and [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 17#Former_pupils_of_schools_in_England|August 17]]. |
|||
::::#Per [[WP:NDESC]], descriptive page titles are [[WP:NDESC|are often invented specifically for articles]]. No source is required for descriptive names as a whole, but they should [[WP:NDESC|incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources]]. That is the case for the proposed category renamings, where Cjc13 has been systematically misrepresenting [[WP:NDESC]]. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#996600; cursor: not-allowed;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 23:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::*[[WP:TITLECHANGES]] supports my interpretation of [[WP:NDESC]] in that it emphasises the use of sources. [[User:Cjc13|Cjc13]] ([[User talk:Cjc13|talk]]) 23:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::*Please stop being silly. [[WP:TITLECHANGES]] is primarily about being cautious in renaming, and it has little to say about sourcing, let alone supporting your bizarre inversions of [[WP:NDESC]]. In any case the descriptive titles incorporate the sourced [[WP:commonname]]s of the schools.<br />You have made the same points unsuccesfully at most of [[User:BrownHairedGirl/Old Fooian categs renamed|the 82 cfDs which have renamed these categories]], and trying to raise the issue again here is just [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]]. Please stop. --[[User:BrownHairedGirl|<span style="color:#996600; cursor: not-allowed;">Brown</span>HairedGirl]] <small>[[User talk:BrownHairedGirl|(talk)]] • ([[Special:Contributions/BrownHairedGirl|contribs]])</small> 04:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Notability revisited: proposal for a taskforce: To improve US Highschool articles == |
|||
See [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Secondary schools should meet WP:GNG or are they exempt?]] for the full story. |
|||
Although the RfC about notability has not (yet) led to consensus, I my opinion we can boast progress. There is a loud and clear disagreement about what sources are suitable to prove notability. Especially the use of school websites and local newspapers is controversial. Further discussion is necessary. |
|||
Also it is now clear that ''any'' change can lead to major problems. If, and if, there comes a change in the notability rules, grandfathering seems a proper solution to ease the challenge. The risk of mass nominations and mass deletions is, in my personal opinion, an important factor in the resistance/reluctance against changes. So be it, but it should not stop the process. |
|||
In an attempt to continue making progress, I suggested a different approach: first start a taskforce to improve articles on secondary schools, and concurrently have the discussion about changes in the notability guidelines. The taskforce, nicknamed by me as "Taskforce Improve US Highschool Articles", can identify articles that might run into trouble with a change and can coordinate the effort to improve those articles. It can take months before an agreement on the guidelines is reached, time enough to improve a lot of articles and ease the effects... |
|||
Finally, I don't think I am the most suitable one to coordinate the taskforce. I stepped on a few toes here and there. The coordinator should be diplomatic enough to achieve agreement on the question what the desired level to reach is. And to get agreement on the question: how do we do that? |
|||
Of course, it is just a proposal to name it "Taskforce Improve US Highschool Articles". Another scope or more then one taskforce is also possible. |
|||
So, anyone willing to take up a role as taskforce-coordinator? [[User:Night of the Big Wind|<font face="Old English Text MT"><font color="green">Night of the Big Wind</font></font>]] [[User talk:Night of the Big Wind|<font color="maroon"><sub><i>talk</i></sub></font>]] 13:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
: I don't think it would be appropriate of me to be a task force co-coordinator at this time, but I would be happy to help out. [[User:CT Cooper|CT Cooper]]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[User talk:CT Cooper|talk]]</small> 12:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
The silence is deafening. Is there really nobody willing to take up the coordinater role? Is everybody just waiting on the massacre and the mass nomination that is likely to come when the guidelines are raised? That can't be true... [[User:Night of the Big Wind|<font face="Old English Text MT"><font color="green">Night of the Big Wind</font></font>]] [[User talk:Night of the Big Wind|<font color="maroon"><sub><i>talk</i></sub></font>]] 13:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
: Not that many people watch this page, perhaps you should try [[WT:WPSCH]]. [[User:CT Cooper|CT Cooper]]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;"> ·</span> [[User talk:CT Cooper|talk]]</small> 15:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::Argh, I have hit the wrong page {{smiley}} [[User:Night of the Big Wind|<font face="Old English Text MT"><font color="green">Night of the Big Wind</font></font>]] [[User talk:Night of the Big Wind|<font color="maroon"><sub><i>talk</i></sub></font>]] 18:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::Perhaps other editors don't agree that a taskforce is necessarily the best way forward. That would explain the lack of response. [[User:Fmph|Fmph]] ([[User talk:Fmph|talk]]) 15:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::Night I have been bold and changed the heading in order to clarify what the topic of the conversation now is. I have followed the link given and it has taken me 95 minutes to read it, and only after 90mins did I find out what the task force was proposing to do. Several task forces were implied that could have had massive remits. The parameters are fairly limited- and restricted to US secondary schools (KS4 and KS5 in UK currency) and I agree that this is a good idea. But the heading here was far to open hence the change. Good luck with the idea, I can't really help as I keep my edits to the right of the pond save on rare occasions. --[[User:ClemRutter|ClemRutter]] ([[User talk:ClemRutter|talk]]) 01:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Confusion about duplication of efforts and discussions == |
|||
Please see [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools#Confusion_about_duplication_of_efforts_and_discussions]] and respond there please. --[[User:Bob Re-born|Bob Re-born]] ([[User talk:Bob Re-born|talk]]) 13:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Westview High School (San Diego)]] == |
|||
I have been working on this article for a while and recently it has become well known as the school the Aurora shooter, [[James Holmes]], graduated from. Thus a "Notable Alumni" section was added and Holmes the only person listed. Many at the school complained, saying the school should not have a reputation of breeding murderers, and added fake and/or non-notable people to this section. What can be done about this? — '''[[User:Pzoxicuvybtnrm|<font color="750404">P</font>]][[User talk:Pzoxicuvybtnrm|<font color="254117">C</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Pzoxicuvybtnrm|<font color="062159">B</font>]]''' 06:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:You might want to try asking this question over at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools]]. That page is much more active than this one. Are you sure he's the only notable alum? That seems odd for a school of 2000+ students. '''[[User:Themfromspace|<font color="blue">Them</font>]][[User talk:Themfromspace|<font color="red">From</font>]][[Special:Contributions/themfromspace|<font color="black">Space</font>]]''' 06:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::Sorry, I thought this would redirect to the WikiProject page. I will transfer this there.— '''[[User:Pzoxicuvybtnrm|<font color="750404">P</font>]][[User talk:Pzoxicuvybtnrm|<font color="254117">C</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Pzoxicuvybtnrm|<font color="062159">B</font>]]''' 06:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC) |
|||
==File:St. Pius X school crest.jpg== |
|||
[[:File:St. Pius X school crest.jpg]] has been nominated for deletion -- [[Special:Contributions/65.94.76.126|65.94.76.126]] ([[User talk:65.94.76.126|talk]]) 06:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC) |
|||
==school bullying suicides related images== |
|||
See [[Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 May 20]] where many of these images are up for deletion -- [[Special:Contributions/65.94.76.126|65.94.76.126]] ([[User talk:65.94.76.126|talk]]) 03:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Jack and Jill School]] == |
|||
This is an elementary school. I don't think they're notable, but I'd like some additional opinions. There's a lot of sources, but they don't seem like significant coverage to me because they seem to be mainly lists of kids winning awards and that doesn't seem to set them apart from most elementary schools. Thanks. [[User:Mdtemp|Mdtemp]] ([[User talk:Mdtemp|talk]]) 19:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Latest revision as of 16:50, 22 July 2024
 | For questions and discussions relating to school articles in general, it is usually more appropriate to start a threat at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools, which exists for that purpose and gets significantly more traffic. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Schools page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
This is an elementary school. I don't think they're notable, but I'd like some additional opinions. There's a lot of sources, but they don't seem like significant coverage to me because they seem to be mainly lists of kids winning awards and that doesn't seem to set them apart from most elementary schools. Thanks. Mdtemp (talk) 19:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Deletion discussion
[edit]There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unitarian Universalist Church of Kent Ohio that may be of interest to members of this Wikiproject. While not about a school, it does deal with some of the issues we have discussed here regarding notability of local organizations, in this case a religious congregation. Any input you can provide would be appreciated. --JonRidinger (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Sakuchia Badiuzzaman Dakhil Madrasah
[edit]Would someone mind taking a look at Sakuchia Badiuzzaman Dakhil Madrasah? It was recently created and it might be some kind of school. It has already been prodded for deletion once and the only source cited is not nearly be enough to satisfy WP:NORG; however, I'm not quite sure if is notable for a stand-alone article per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
- I also asked about this at WT:BANGLADESH#Sakuchia Badiuzzaman Dakhil Madrasah and another editor posted that it is a high school, so that clears up my concerns about the schools status per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Category:Princeton University alumni subcategories by decade??
[edit]Does anyone know where the discussion occurred that allowed for all of the subcategories that breaks up Category:Princeton University alumni by decade? I think it's a dangerous trend to set and makes navigation unnecessarily difficult. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
WikiProject:Higher Education
[edit]WP:Universities has now moved to WP:Higher Education and I have started a conversation on what follow up work is needed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Higher_Education#Requested_move_18_January_2020:_follow_up. Contributions welcome. TSventon (talk) 12:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
- All discussion takes place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools not here. I have duplicated your post over. --ClemRutter (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education § Applied learning
[edit]
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education § Applied learning. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)