| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Schools in Hampshire template. |
|
 | Schools Template‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
 | Hampshire NA‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
I think the scope of this template is too big, and propose that we split it into individual templates for each borough / unitary authority in Hampshire. Also some of the schools listed have now closed. Since notability is not temporary there's no need for the articles to be deleted, but should the template be limited to currently operational schools or should it include every school that ever existed in the area? waggers ( talk) 09:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. But think we should sort by type and then area. e.g. Template:Comprehensive Schools in Hampshire Template:Further Education Colleges in Hampshire -- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 16:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the scope of this template is too big. I think splitting them by type is a good start, if necessary they could be split by area as well. Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just created one for Independant schools as well:
Template:Independant schools in Hampshire. Sorted this one slightly differently (by type rather than area). --
Flutefluteflute
Talk
Contributions 19:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK, now I've made Template:Primary schools in Hampshire, this template could be removed or replaced with:
-- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 19:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Or better,
-- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 19:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I do quite like that second design, it is a reasonable size and allows easy navigation between different school types.
Camaron | Chris
(talk) 18:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Does that make a consensus?
waggers (
talk) 20:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- One minor alteration though - I think "comprehensive schools" should be changed to "Secondary schools and academies" to include any secondary schools that don't have a comprehensive admissions policy. Otherwise, there's nowhere for such schools to go in this structure.
waggers (
talk) 20:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd consider that concensus. I'm not particularly knowledgable about the details of the school system. Would you still exclude private/independant schools from the template? -- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 20:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- One minor alteration though - I think "comprehensive schools" should be changed to "Secondary schools and academies" to include any secondary schools that don't have a comprehensive admissions policy. Otherwise, there's nowhere for such schools to go in this structure.
waggers (
talk) 20:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Does that make a consensus?
waggers (
talk) 20:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I do quite like that second design, it is a reasonable size and allows easy navigation between different school types.
Camaron | Chris
(talk) 18:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
If we have a separate "Independent schools in Hampshire" template as we do now, I don't see a need to repeat the same schools elsewhere. So perhaps the breakdown should be:
- State-funded infant/junior/primary schools
- State-funded secondary schools and academies
- Further education colleges
- Independent schools
waggers ( talk) 10:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's how I think it is presently (and I agree with the layout). I just don't know what the 'correct' names for the types of schools are.--
Flutefluteflute
Talk
Contributions 16:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, in a nutshell:
- Infant = ages 4-7
- Junior = ages 7-11
- Primary = combination of both the above, ie ages 4-11
- Secondary = ages 11-16 (GCSEs)
- Further = additional undergraduate education, such as A levels, NVQs etc.
- Higher = graduate level and above.
- So if we change "comprehensive" to "secondary" all should be well!
waggers (
talk) 22:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that makes sense to me. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, in a nutshell:
So I've made the change. Now for school pages, what should we do? Put only the relevant category box on the page, or the whole thing?-- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 13:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well with the changes this template is no longer very large, so I am happy with putting the whole thing in. Camaron | Chris (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid I find this approach more complicated than it needs to be, and I sincerely hope it will not be applied with less cause to other education templates. I have three criticisms in particular:
- I don't see any justification in the discussion above for the deletion of the 'Former schools' category, while retaining a number of schools in the template of uncertain notability. A good number of former schools (grammar schools, especially) are much more notable and of greater interest than some of those which will be included on the principle of "include all schools which have articles and are still operating". The main criterion for inclusion should surely be notability. waggers asked " should [the template] include every school that ever existed in the area?" but that is not the approach of this family of templates, which is to include all of the notable schools of the area, past and present.
- I also find the change from Comprehensive schools to Secondary schools a bad precedent. Most notable independent schools are secondary schools, and the approach so far (a sensible one, surely?) has been to avoid overlapping categories. The present divisions of the super-template imply that a school cannot be both secondary and independent, which is of course wrong.
- I see that Flutefluteflute has changed the correct spelling independent to the incorrect one independant by creating a new subsidiary template which has the spelling mistake in its name.
Xn4 ( talk) 22:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, to address the first point first - if a school is sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article, then it is sufficiently notable to go in the navbox. To start down the road of "X is more notable than Y even though Y is notable to have an article" would only make things more confusing, not less. I don't object to an additional "former schools" template, and no categories have been deleted in this redesign - if they had been, it would be through community agreement at WP:CFD.
- Secondly, comprehensive does not mean secondary - primary schools and further education colleges, even universities, can have comprehensive admissions policies. Perhaps the independent secondary schools should be merged with the existing secondary schools template, to create the following subdivisions:
- Hampshire LEA funded secondary schools
- Independent secondary schools
- Portsmouth LEA funded secondary schools
- Southampton LEA funded secondary schools
- Re the spelling mistake, it barely matters since it doesn't show up on the published page. I fixed the template name yesterday and have now fixed the reference in this template. Spelling mistakes are easily fixed and not worth kicking up a fuss about. waggers ( talk) 08:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, waggers, and thank you for your reply.
- You say "comprehensive does not mean secondary", and I agree, but that's exactly the problem. Changing Comprehensive into Secondary has created the painful overlap. And the standard design for these templates (which was here until a few days ago) was agreed after detailed discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. Your suggestion of merging the independent secondary schools into the renamed category would overcome the problem, but it would make the navbox less useful and it would not be consistent with the approach agreed at WikiProject Schools.
- You say "if a school is sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article, then it is sufficiently notable to go in the navbox", and I agree with that. You also say "I don't object to an additional "former schools" template, and no categories have been deleted in this redesign", but the "Former schools" category ('division' might be a better word) has been deleted, although I now see (which I hadn't noticed before) that they have been merged into the Independent Schools sub-template, so the schools are still there, although the division for them has gone. This is not the end of the world, but it isn't what was agreed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. If you're offering to move the former schools into their own template, then that would certainly be nearer to the agreed format.
- You say "Re the spelling mistake, it barely matters since it doesn't show up on the published page." But it did show up, until you made the correction here, one minute before writing "it doesn't show up on the published page"! But thank you for fixing it.
Xn4 ( talk) 15:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Whilst I removed the former schools section of the template, the actual schools are still there, simply placed slightly differently. (e.g. see the 'Prepatory' section of the Independent template.) Although, perhaps I should have asked for an opinion here first.
- wagger's suggestion in regards to the second point looks sensible to me. Although the independent schools that span a wider age range need to be catered for somewhere.-- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 15:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I entirely agree that "the independent schools that span a wider age range need to be catered for somewhere", and for that reason (and others) waggers's suggestion isn't one which works. There is purpose in the design which was agreed, after quite long discussion. (NB, you refer to "Prepatory" - I have just corrected that spelling in the template to 'Preparatory'.) Xn4 ( talk) 16:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I found the original discussion. I just raised the issue on the Schools wikiproject. -- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 16:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
"You say 'Re the spelling mistake, it barely matters since it doesn't show up on the published page.' But it did show up, until you made the correction here, one minute before writing 'it doesn't show up on the published page'! But thank you for fixing it." The name of the template does not appear on the article page as viewed by most visitors. Only if you went into the edit page for the template (not even the edit page for the article) would you see that spelling mistake. waggers ( talk) 21:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- The spelling mistake was visible on every page the template appeared on. I'm happy to agree that worries about spelling are trivial, although in the context of an encyclopedia I wouldn't call them 'pedantic'. As that was a minor point, easily cleared up, I put it last. To go on to say "this all seems a little pedantic" is to treat the minor point as if it were the only point, which is a good debating ploy but not very admirable. Xn4 ( talk) 03:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have to agree that this new template is unnecessarily complicated and confusing. I did not see any problem with the previous template. It was much easier for the reader to see at a glance all the schools in Hampshire. Most of the independent schools are secondary schools so it makes no sense to lump them into a separate category. It also makes more sense to have former schools as a separate category.
Dahliarose (
talk) 17:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- The template was getting a very large and size and in some cases was actually bigger than the articles they were placed in. This made some articles look very odd; such huge navboxes have been the subject of criticism on other WikiProjects and are beyond bite size chunks for a readers. The number of articles on schools is only going to go up in future, I do not thinking maintaining one massive template is going to be in the long run very sustainable. I don't get how the current template is confusing, the show buttons look pretty clear and I think most English speakers would understand. If the current template is really problematic, an alternative can be that it can replaced with a list of schools in Hampshire (wikilinked in school articles) which can manage the numbers involved more effectively, and only the sub-templates would be transcluded onto articles to focus on the most related schools. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Currently there is only a long List of schools in the South East of England (which according to Wikipedia:Article size, should be split), however there is for some a reason a dedicated list for further education at List of further education colleges in Hampshire. This should possibly be re-organised. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have to agree that this new template is unnecessarily complicated and confusing. I did not see any problem with the previous template. It was much easier for the reader to see at a glance all the schools in Hampshire. Most of the independent schools are secondary schools so it makes no sense to lump them into a separate category. It also makes more sense to have former schools as a separate category.
Dahliarose (
talk) 17:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Schools in Hampshire template. |
|
|
| Schools Template‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
|
| Hampshire NA‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
I think the scope of this template is too big, and propose that we split it into individual templates for each borough / unitary authority in Hampshire. Also some of the schools listed have now closed. Since notability is not temporary there's no need for the articles to be deleted, but should the template be limited to currently operational schools or should it include every school that ever existed in the area? waggers ( talk) 09:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. But think we should sort by type and then area. e.g. Template:Comprehensive Schools in Hampshire Template:Further Education Colleges in Hampshire -- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 16:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the scope of this template is too big. I think splitting them by type is a good start, if necessary they could be split by area as well. Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just created one for Independant schools as well:
Template:Independant schools in Hampshire. Sorted this one slightly differently (by type rather than area). --
Flutefluteflute
Talk
Contributions 19:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK, now I've made Template:Primary schools in Hampshire, this template could be removed or replaced with:
-- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 19:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Or better,
-- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 19:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I do quite like that second design, it is a reasonable size and allows easy navigation between different school types.
Camaron | Chris
(talk) 18:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Does that make a consensus?
waggers (
talk) 20:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- One minor alteration though - I think "comprehensive schools" should be changed to "Secondary schools and academies" to include any secondary schools that don't have a comprehensive admissions policy. Otherwise, there's nowhere for such schools to go in this structure.
waggers (
talk) 20:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd consider that concensus. I'm not particularly knowledgable about the details of the school system. Would you still exclude private/independant schools from the template? -- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 20:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- One minor alteration though - I think "comprehensive schools" should be changed to "Secondary schools and academies" to include any secondary schools that don't have a comprehensive admissions policy. Otherwise, there's nowhere for such schools to go in this structure.
waggers (
talk) 20:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Does that make a consensus?
waggers (
talk) 20:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I do quite like that second design, it is a reasonable size and allows easy navigation between different school types.
Camaron | Chris
(talk) 18:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
If we have a separate "Independent schools in Hampshire" template as we do now, I don't see a need to repeat the same schools elsewhere. So perhaps the breakdown should be:
- State-funded infant/junior/primary schools
- State-funded secondary schools and academies
- Further education colleges
- Independent schools
waggers ( talk) 10:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- That's how I think it is presently (and I agree with the layout). I just don't know what the 'correct' names for the types of schools are.--
Flutefluteflute
Talk
Contributions 16:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, in a nutshell:
- Infant = ages 4-7
- Junior = ages 7-11
- Primary = combination of both the above, ie ages 4-11
- Secondary = ages 11-16 (GCSEs)
- Further = additional undergraduate education, such as A levels, NVQs etc.
- Higher = graduate level and above.
- So if we change "comprehensive" to "secondary" all should be well!
waggers (
talk) 22:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that makes sense to me. Camaron | Chris (talk) 10:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, in a nutshell:
So I've made the change. Now for school pages, what should we do? Put only the relevant category box on the page, or the whole thing?-- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 13:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well with the changes this template is no longer very large, so I am happy with putting the whole thing in. Camaron | Chris (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I am afraid I find this approach more complicated than it needs to be, and I sincerely hope it will not be applied with less cause to other education templates. I have three criticisms in particular:
- I don't see any justification in the discussion above for the deletion of the 'Former schools' category, while retaining a number of schools in the template of uncertain notability. A good number of former schools (grammar schools, especially) are much more notable and of greater interest than some of those which will be included on the principle of "include all schools which have articles and are still operating". The main criterion for inclusion should surely be notability. waggers asked " should [the template] include every school that ever existed in the area?" but that is not the approach of this family of templates, which is to include all of the notable schools of the area, past and present.
- I also find the change from Comprehensive schools to Secondary schools a bad precedent. Most notable independent schools are secondary schools, and the approach so far (a sensible one, surely?) has been to avoid overlapping categories. The present divisions of the super-template imply that a school cannot be both secondary and independent, which is of course wrong.
- I see that Flutefluteflute has changed the correct spelling independent to the incorrect one independant by creating a new subsidiary template which has the spelling mistake in its name.
Xn4 ( talk) 22:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, to address the first point first - if a school is sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article, then it is sufficiently notable to go in the navbox. To start down the road of "X is more notable than Y even though Y is notable to have an article" would only make things more confusing, not less. I don't object to an additional "former schools" template, and no categories have been deleted in this redesign - if they had been, it would be through community agreement at WP:CFD.
- Secondly, comprehensive does not mean secondary - primary schools and further education colleges, even universities, can have comprehensive admissions policies. Perhaps the independent secondary schools should be merged with the existing secondary schools template, to create the following subdivisions:
- Hampshire LEA funded secondary schools
- Independent secondary schools
- Portsmouth LEA funded secondary schools
- Southampton LEA funded secondary schools
- Re the spelling mistake, it barely matters since it doesn't show up on the published page. I fixed the template name yesterday and have now fixed the reference in this template. Spelling mistakes are easily fixed and not worth kicking up a fuss about. waggers ( talk) 08:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello, waggers, and thank you for your reply.
- You say "comprehensive does not mean secondary", and I agree, but that's exactly the problem. Changing Comprehensive into Secondary has created the painful overlap. And the standard design for these templates (which was here until a few days ago) was agreed after detailed discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. Your suggestion of merging the independent secondary schools into the renamed category would overcome the problem, but it would make the navbox less useful and it would not be consistent with the approach agreed at WikiProject Schools.
- You say "if a school is sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article, then it is sufficiently notable to go in the navbox", and I agree with that. You also say "I don't object to an additional "former schools" template, and no categories have been deleted in this redesign", but the "Former schools" category ('division' might be a better word) has been deleted, although I now see (which I hadn't noticed before) that they have been merged into the Independent Schools sub-template, so the schools are still there, although the division for them has gone. This is not the end of the world, but it isn't what was agreed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. If you're offering to move the former schools into their own template, then that would certainly be nearer to the agreed format.
- You say "Re the spelling mistake, it barely matters since it doesn't show up on the published page." But it did show up, until you made the correction here, one minute before writing "it doesn't show up on the published page"! But thank you for fixing it.
Xn4 ( talk) 15:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Whilst I removed the former schools section of the template, the actual schools are still there, simply placed slightly differently. (e.g. see the 'Prepatory' section of the Independent template.) Although, perhaps I should have asked for an opinion here first.
- wagger's suggestion in regards to the second point looks sensible to me. Although the independent schools that span a wider age range need to be catered for somewhere.-- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 15:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I entirely agree that "the independent schools that span a wider age range need to be catered for somewhere", and for that reason (and others) waggers's suggestion isn't one which works. There is purpose in the design which was agreed, after quite long discussion. (NB, you refer to "Prepatory" - I have just corrected that spelling in the template to 'Preparatory'.) Xn4 ( talk) 16:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I found the original discussion. I just raised the issue on the Schools wikiproject. -- Flutefluteflute Talk Contributions 16:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
"You say 'Re the spelling mistake, it barely matters since it doesn't show up on the published page.' But it did show up, until you made the correction here, one minute before writing 'it doesn't show up on the published page'! But thank you for fixing it." The name of the template does not appear on the article page as viewed by most visitors. Only if you went into the edit page for the template (not even the edit page for the article) would you see that spelling mistake. waggers ( talk) 21:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- The spelling mistake was visible on every page the template appeared on. I'm happy to agree that worries about spelling are trivial, although in the context of an encyclopedia I wouldn't call them 'pedantic'. As that was a minor point, easily cleared up, I put it last. To go on to say "this all seems a little pedantic" is to treat the minor point as if it were the only point, which is a good debating ploy but not very admirable. Xn4 ( talk) 03:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have to agree that this new template is unnecessarily complicated and confusing. I did not see any problem with the previous template. It was much easier for the reader to see at a glance all the schools in Hampshire. Most of the independent schools are secondary schools so it makes no sense to lump them into a separate category. It also makes more sense to have former schools as a separate category.
Dahliarose (
talk) 17:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- The template was getting a very large and size and in some cases was actually bigger than the articles they were placed in. This made some articles look very odd; such huge navboxes have been the subject of criticism on other WikiProjects and are beyond bite size chunks for a readers. The number of articles on schools is only going to go up in future, I do not thinking maintaining one massive template is going to be in the long run very sustainable. I don't get how the current template is confusing, the show buttons look pretty clear and I think most English speakers would understand. If the current template is really problematic, an alternative can be that it can replaced with a list of schools in Hampshire (wikilinked in school articles) which can manage the numbers involved more effectively, and only the sub-templates would be transcluded onto articles to focus on the most related schools. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Currently there is only a long List of schools in the South East of England (which according to Wikipedia:Article size, should be split), however there is for some a reason a dedicated list for further education at List of further education colleges in Hampshire. This should possibly be re-organised. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have to agree that this new template is unnecessarily complicated and confusing. I did not see any problem with the previous template. It was much easier for the reader to see at a glance all the schools in Hampshire. Most of the independent schools are secondary schools so it makes no sense to lump them into a separate category. It also makes more sense to have former schools as a separate category.
Dahliarose (
talk) 17:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)