Wikipedia talk:Schools

New proposal

A school is usually assumed to be notable if it has gained national or regional recognition for its curriculum, extracurricular activities, architecture or history. The following are examples for recognition:

• the school has been recognized with a notable national award,
• has won a science competition at the national level,
• its athletic teams hold a nationwide record.
• the buildings used by some English schools have been classified by English Heritage while some American schools are listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
• Schools having significant published histories. Details will be found in one of the online catalogues such as Worldcat or, for UK schools, COPAC; however, by themselves these don't establish notability.

This is no longer a "merger" since Schools is tagged as historic-inactive, and we now have no guideline for schools. To add text on otherwise uncovered organizations is definitely within the purview of this page. While some may advocate a separate page that discussion is not mutually exclusive to inclusion here. --Kevin Murray 20:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Call it what you will, but it certainly does an end-run around those who did not wish to see schools included in this guideline. I also think that if you're going to try to do something like this, you'd better give significant notice to those interested in schools, such as at the talk page of the inactive proposed school guidelines and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. I can only imagine the hue-and-cry at the next AfD nom for a school that relies on this guideline without any notice or input from editors interested in schools. Agent 86 20:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The schools group has totally failed to reach consensus after a very full debate, I think that trying to apply these guidelines to schools would indeed cause a consensus--a consensus that the guidelines were not suitable. They are considerably more restrictive than even many of the deletionist-inclines editors working with schools would support.DGG 20:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My comment refers to the 5 points immediately above--is this the currently active text? And I have lost track, where is the current revised working copy--is it the present project page?DGG 21:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

To me this begs the question: are the current guidelines at WP:N and WP:ORG sufficient to cover the need for school related topics? I say yes, but if we need to compromise toward some specific school criteria, then let them be brief and let them be here. --Kevin Murray 22:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• The above moved from WP:ORG's talk page. >Radiant< 08:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If the current proposal is historic, surely it should be preserved at the point where it was judged to be historic, ie, the last version by Radiant. Kevin has subsequently made two further amendments to the so-called historic proposal. Is the proposal historic or is it active again? No wonder we can't reach any consensus when nobody knows which version is being worked on and what the current status quo is. I think it might be better to start from scratch with a completely new proposal. Dahliarose 23:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not really. If people want to pick up a historical proposal and work on it again, they're welcome to. If edits wouldn't have been welcome, I would have protected the page. >Radiant< 10:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Basically, the main argument that I saw here was quite simply WP:CREEP. WP:N provides a very good test of notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 23:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dahlia, and have reverted to the version tagged historical. If editing is ongoing, that suggests that an effort to reach consensus is ongoing, and therefore the proposal shouldn't have been rejected yet. If the rejection was valid, on the other hand, it's the last-discussed text that would be of the most help to someone initiating a new proposal, and modifying it cuts down on the value of preservation, because it could give a false impression of what precisely was rejected. Shimeru 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to:

• blank the rejected content and
• write a very simple guideline, pointing to:
  • core policies,
  • WP:N,
  • and for help and advice to Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools.
• myschool.wikia.com SmokeyJoe 03:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• reinstate the proposed guideline tag

SmokeyJoe 01:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That generally tends to cause a trainwreck (it's unclear whether old comments refer to the old version or new version, people intending to link to this find they link to something they never intended to, etc., etc.). If you want to start fresh, it's usually best to pick a new name and really make a fresh start (perhaps WP:SCHOOLNOTE)? That also has the advantage that people can look back at the old proposal, and see what type of objections the new one will need to address. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 01:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• If you want to start fresh, the best approach is probably to move this page to Schools/OldPage, and keep the (new) working draft at Wikipedia:Schools. Otherwise we'll just get two divergent versions again, like with the School3 mess last year. >Radiant< 10:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Radiant that it is best to archive this historic guideline and start afresh. I don't think the content should be blanked. We should then proceed as Smokey Joe has suggested. A notice must be posted on Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools. At the same time I think it would be useful to develop a separate page of useful sources for school articles which could be linked from this page. The embryo for such an article already exists with a list of sources for notable alumni on the WikiProject Schools page. I think a problem with a lot of school articles is that people simply don't know where to look for the information they need. Dahliarose 10:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree about restarting this here so soon, in any fashion; much of the objection was to the mere existence of another guideline, not just the content. I think that the POV inertia will cause the same text to rapidly re-evolve whether the page is blanked or not, and we will be back to the status of last week. I suggest that a discussion commence at a sub-page to the Schools project, and/or work at WP:ORG to see whether that can be adapted to handle schools under broader guidelines with several concise special cases. --Kevin Murray 16:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• The fact that there have been so many attempts to start a separate school guideline demonstrates that a need exists. There was no consensus for a merger with WP:ORG and much of the content is irrelevant to schools. This guideline was at a stage of active development when a vote was taken last week and the whole issue was very confusing as nobody knew which version of the guideline was active when they were voting. I'm not sure what Kevin means about COPAC. My intention was merely to point people in the right direction to find suitable sources. The fact that a school has a published history (as evidenced by its inclusion in the Worldcat or COPAC online catalogue) provides a clear indication of its notability and the existence of a reliable source of information to form the basis of an article. We need a very simple guideline to state that there is no consensus that all schools are notable and that notability is determined by [WP:N]], combined with a few examples. Dahliarose 18:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be a good place for a new proposal to start, actually: is there consensus about anything at all, regarding schools? Judging by the last few efforts, I think we're going to need to determine that first, and then work out the text, rather than propose text and then discuss it. Shimeru 19:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dahliarose, please forgive my mistake in the interprestaion of what you were suggesting in the prior discussion. I have amended my comment above. --Kevin Murray 20:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I still favour a very brief guideline for WP:Schools, in the true sense of a guideline (A guide, helpful, not actionable). I see no point in creating a monument to the current version and creating yet another break in the discussion history. For anyone who wants to reference the current version for any purpose, they can use this: [1] I don’t agree that the page is inactive. Progress on WP:Schools is suitably on-hold while WP:Notability is in turmoil. SmokeyJoe 00:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Status

This is not historical or rejected, and I have put it back as a proposal. The schools3 proposal was moved here in the last month since it was felt that was closer to consensus then what was here before. That proposal was a slowly moving guideline. This guideline will take time to develop consensus due to the strong views from many editors. To say it is dead without a straw pole when the proposal is ready is counter productive. Plain and simple, let the discussion and work continue. This is clearly not dead and without it we will be wasting time on AfD. Give it time. There is no deadline here, just many editors who want to reach consensus. Vegaswikian 20:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is an incorrect interpretation leading to improper action. Please read the following which is copied from WP:POLICY:
  • A rejected " page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there's active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a rejected proposal from scratch and start in a different direction." I don't think that there could be a more clear-cut case! --Kevin Murray 20:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Kevin, may I ask why you're so adamant about this? By my count, within the past few days, you've now reverted 5 editors who had applied a different tag (Alansohn, Vegaswikian, JoshuaZ, Radiant, and me). All of which came after your merge proposal failed. I'm not saying your reading of WP:POLICY is incorrect, but if editors like JoshuaZ and Alansohn (who are, respectively, fairly firm on the exclusionist and inclusionist "sides" of the discussion) both agree that a particular version is near consensus and work could continue... then perhaps we should hold off for a while? Is there some greater reason why this must be tagged as "rejected," when it holds no special weight as "proposed"? Shimeru 22:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I think that the inclusion of Radiant in your comment mistates the histroy as Radiant marked this as inactive. The most recent discussions seem to acknowledge failure and have been discussions about beginning a new process. I don't see this coming toward any consensus and unfortunately proposed criteria seem to be cited regularly in XfD, as noted above by editors' comments. My proposal of a merger was meant to be a simpler way to remove the inconsistencies between this and BIO, but it appears that the editors associated with BIO didn't want the controversy there, and implied that the value was not worth the cost. --Kevin Murray 22:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
        • The rejection of this proposal was premature. The vote to reject this policy came at a most unfortunate time when the proposal was being actively worked on and it was impossible to work out which of the many then existent versions was being rejected. The decision to reject the policy was made over two days on 25th and 26th February. If you look at the history of the proposal you will see that on 25th February the main policy page was edited on six separate occasions. I for one did not even vote as I didn't have a clue what was going on and didn't know which of the various versions was being voted on. How can you possibly have a fair vote when a page is being changed around so much? I agree with Vegaswikian that we had been slowly working towards a consensus. Now we know everyone's views I think we should be able to reach an agreement. The recent discussions have not acknowledged failure. We were simply trying to establish the best way to proceed now that we have a historical rejected tag on this page. Dahliarose 00:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
          • From WP:POLICY: "regardless of whether there's active discussion or not ... if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments." How much more clear need it be? --Kevin Murray 01:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Yes... I have to admit that consensus seems unlikely. I'm not surprised to hear ORG wanted no part of it, although I suppose that's the guiding... er, guideline... for schools by default, now. And the main WP:NOTE, of course. Still, I'd like to believe we can still work toward something. Schools have been a thorny issue for a long time, so any progress is good. This weekend, I intend to go over all the archives, and see what's been more or less agreed upon; that'll be a good place to start. Shimeru 06:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
              • I support a succinct inclusion at WP:ORG, to address any shortcomings in the evaluation of schools. I don't oppose special cases, just redundant pages. --Kevin Murray 00:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
            • It would indeed be very helpful if Shimeru could provide a precis of the archives to establish what issues have been agreed. I think real progress has been made and I'm hopeful that we can reach a consensus. We really need to focus on formulating a workable guideline rather than interpreting the minutiae of Wikipedia policy but I felt I had to respond to Kevin's comment. WP:Policy states that "Proposals should be advertised to solicit feedback and to reach a consensus". That clearly did not happen in this case. I can't find any guideline which states how long the voting period should be but the rejected/historical tag was added after just two days which is clearly insufficient time for proper debate. Articles which are up for deletion are permitted five days' discussion. Surely the same criteria should apply to proposals? Dahliarose 21:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
              • I think you miss the point that this is not about having a vote, it is evaluating whether progress has been made toward a meaningful consensus. --Kevin Murray 00:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• I suggest as the subject for the straw poll:

Some but not all schools are notable enough for an article.

Can we even agree on that much?DGG 01:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Sounds perfectly reasonable. Icemuon 13:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• I think we can agree that:

1. There is no consensus, either amongst school editors or in the wider Wikipedia community, that all schools are notable.
2. There is a consensus on Wikipedia that all articles should conform to Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Attribution.
I would add to the above two statements the suggestion that the vast majority of schools offering secondary education (eg, high schools in America, secondary schools in the UK) in most English-speaking countries (eg, America, Australia, Canada and the UK) have the potential to be notable within the confines of the existing Wikipedia notablity criterion. Does that seem to be a fair summary of the current status? Dahliarose 14:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any consensus that most "secondary education" schools are notable. From what I've seen, there's very little consensus on any of it. (A lot of high-schools I've seen don't appear to be notable, the only sources available are primary, such as government reports, or trivial secondary coverage such as statistics lists or a paper printing a sports score or "human interest" blurb.) Still, if people really do want to continue the discussion, then we shouldn't tag the proposal to say it's "inactive" when it's really not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If we can't get consensus that secondary schools are notable, then we're deader than a doornail. One would be hard pressed to find a secondary school for which two or more non-trivial sources are available from WP:RS and WP:V sources. If we can't agree on this what will we ever agree on? Alansohn 20:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd go for "A subject is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources...". We shouldn't be doing ad-hoc notability rules on a case by case basis, that's an invitation to systemic bias. Either the source material exists or it doesn't, that's an objective standard. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 20:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Alan, if the secondary schools have no trouble making it under WP:N, then why do we need a special case? Your argument refutes your premise--Kevin Murray 20:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This on;y transfers the argument to the question of what counts as a 'non-trivial RS. Suppose we find two local newspaper stories. One says the enrollment is 500 in 2005, and says nothing else. Another similarly reports only that the enrollment is 550 in 2006. Seraphimblade, does that justify an article?

If you think it does, then there is no useful consensus, and the outcome for each individual article will be determined by how many people of each opinion are around AfD at the time it is discussed. Since AfdDs can be repeated indefinitely (one is on the 13th round at the moment), a supporter of this view will write the article, and those who think otherwise can re-nominate it every month.

On the other hand, if you agree that a school article with no content beyond that is not article-worthy, we can work on a compromise. Then the clear ones on each side of the line won't go into Afd, only the borderline ones. The border may shift, but that's the case for all WP topics. DGG 21:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Your examples are just statistics without interpretation, so those are primary sources. That one's answerable without even beginning to go into triviality. Triviality can be objectively defined too, though. If we forget what we know from personal experience and primary sources, and use solely secondary ones, can we write a good, comprehensive article on the subject? Could someone with no personal experience and only the secondary sources do that? If yes, the coverage is non-trivial. If no, the coverage is trivial. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 21:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to deal with realities rather than high-minded principles. Regardless of all the existing Wikipedia guidelines, Wikiproject Schools is currently in the process of assessing school articles. I noticed in the latest batch of assessments two schools Cleeve School and Derby Grammar which had nothing more than basic stubs with no attempt to define their notability. Yet these articles were simply classified as stubs and not recommended for deletion. Other schools which haven't yet come within the scope of the project with far more content seem to get recommended for deletion. There is no consistency. I am sure it would be quite possible to write a verifiable article about either Cleeve School or Derby Grammar to conform with the current Wikipedia guidelines, and the same principle would probably apply to the majority of UK secondary schools. I cannot believe that the same does not apply for most American schools. Regardless of our discussions here the majority of school articles do not get deleted. Perhaps it would be be possible to do a survey of the outcome of school deletion debates. That would at least establish current practice. Then let's address the realities and produce a guideline to help people to write a good article and to point them in the direction of suitable sources. The ongoing tagging controversy and the fact that this discussion is continuing suggests that this policy should be re-activated. Dahliarose 23:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is no consensus here for this to be a guideline. The ongoing tagging controversy makes me think this should be deleted and salted. Perhaps an essay could be developed. To have this thing under constant flux is confusing. --Kevin Murray 20:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

State of consensus to date

I've read through the archives and am attempting to summarize points of agreement, roughly from greatest consensus to least.

• Many schools are notable. Complete agreement, though the scope of "many" may vary.
• Not all schools are notable. Broad, though not complete, agreement.
• In order to have a separate article, a school should be able to be verified through a reliable source, which may be a primary source. Broad, though not complete, agreement. (Note, though, that disagreement stands in opposition to verifiability, and a schools guideline probably will not be able to overrule a standing policy in this way.)
• Merge/redirect is a preferable (or acceptable) alternative to deletion, where a school should not (or not yet) have its own article. Broad agreement with the general principle, though various nuances of opinion exist.
• A school article should be supported by reliable independent sources. A significant level of agreement; however, there are those who feel this excludes too many schools, including a few who appear strongly opposed to this standard.
• A school article should be supported by reliable independent non-trivial sources. In theory, the same level of agreement as above, though there's little agreement about which sources are "non-trivial," making this one more contentious.
• There is no need for a separate notability guideline for schools. Some agreement, though for a wide variety of reasons, some of which might not be entirely compatible with others.

On actual criteria of notability, there's broad agreement that being recognized at the national level for some trait or achievement makes a school notable. There's less agreement about recognition at the regional level, and much less at the local level. Notability by association with notable alumni is contentious.

General sentiment is that, all other things being equal, universities and colleges are more notable than high schools, which are more notable than middle schools, elementary schools, kindergartens, or nursery schools. There is broad disagreement as to just how notable the "average" member of any of these categories should be considered, or whether they are inherently notable.

The most contentious point of debate seems to be over which sources are acceptable as a proof of notability (as opposed to as a source of information). This will probably continue to be the sticking point. Shimeru 03:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• It appears to be accepted that universities and colleges are always notable--I recall no attempt at a deletion of such articles in the last month or two, and earlier ones have always be kept. There is much more question about individual divisions with in a university, which apparently have to be truly N on at least a national basis. DGG 04:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say there's an agreement with "always," based on the past discussion, but it seems at least there's consensus that all verifiable colleges deserve an article. It's actually not something that's been discussed a great deal, just touched on from time to time, so I'm hesitant to attempt to summarize consensus upon it. I think it would not be controversial to include any college or university that meets WP:V. Shimeru 05:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Shimeru for all your hard work and your most helpful summary. You have made a most valuable contribution to this debate. I think the way forward is to provide a list of reliable independent sources for school articles. I suspect most people simply don't know where to look for the appropriate information. Dahliarose 10:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It probably would be useful to distinguish between accredited colleges and universities, and diploma mills. Although colleges that lose their accreditation become even more notable, and some diploma mills are notable as such. Dhaluza 09:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor correction on factual basis: In order to have a separate article, a school should be able to be verified through a reliable source, which may be a primary source. This statement as it stands is nonsense from a logical perspective. Verifiability is not a property of the school, it is a property of the respective article. We don't include articles on subjects merely because we can verify their existence.

Pure opinion on my part: This isn't a "separate guideline", in the same way as Wikipedia:Notability (*) are not "separate guidelines". If anything, they are a clarification of our existing rules, suggesting how we might apply the general rules in specific cases. This isn't a specific guideline for schools, but rather to be a means of aiding us in judging whether or not the subjects individually meet the PNC, and whether a "complete" article can be written. I think of this family of pages as breakout pages from WP:N, nothing more. Chris cheese whine 22:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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 districts 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. 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.--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. 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 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. 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. Dhaluza 10:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at 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. 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. 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. David D. (Talk) 04:06, 13 March 2007 (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? 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. 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. TerriersFan 17:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Alumni giving notability to elementary schools?

What's the consensus on this? 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. 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?

--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. --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. 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. --SmokeyJoe 06:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

New discussion underway - Wikipedia:WikiProject school consensus resolution

Take a look: Wikipedia:WikiProject school consensus resolution. • Lawrence Cohen 07:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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? --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'. 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:School articles to be merged

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. Rodhullandemu 21:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This page is watched less than Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools so you may want to post this on that page as well. (Evidence: [2], [3] Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll copy this over. Rodhullandemu 18:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Notability of schools

Further information: 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. 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.

That is why this is my proposal:

• 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 Arizona's Shadow Ridge High School were in 2010-11).

In addition, if the 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 mass deleted last year.) Raymie (t • 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 {{convert}} to convert to age for non-US readers? 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. 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. 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. -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. 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). 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. 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. 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:

1. Reliable Sources?
2. If (1) fails then, historicity of school/assets, or a notable label (e.g. Blue Ribbon School or OC school)?
3. 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). -danjel (talk to me) 08:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

To illustrate the point that I'm making... 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)? -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? 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. -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. 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. -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? 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. -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 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.
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. 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. 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.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.John Pack Lambert (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.John Pack Lambert (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. --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. --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? 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. --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. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Completely understand and agree. Do you have an opinion about what we should do on Wikipedia?--Bob Re-born (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Does it need to be standardised? Why not just use the terms interchangeably? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 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.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. 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. --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 this debate. The changes do not reflect local usage. There do not seem to be any sources for use of "People educated at". Cjc13 (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The comments about categories are irrelevant to this discussion. As Cjc13 well knows:

1. 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.
2. "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: Feb 9, July 17, July 30, August 1, August 8, and August 17.
3. Per WP:NDESC, descriptive page titles are are often invented specifically for articles. No source is required for descriptive names as a whole, but they should 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• WP:TITLECHANGES supports my interpretation of WP:NDESC in that it emphasises the use of sources. 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:commonnames of the schools.
  You have made the same points unsuccesfully at most of the 82 cfDs which have renamed these categories, and trying to raise the issue again here is just WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Please stop. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 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? Night of the Big Wind _talk 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. CT Cooper · talk 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... Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Not that many people watch this page, perhaps you should try WT:WPSCH. CT Cooper · talk 15:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Argh, I have hit the wrong page Night of the Big Wind _talk 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. 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. --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. --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? — PCB 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. ThemFromSpace 06:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought this would redirect to the WikiProject page. I will transfer this there.— PCB 06:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)