Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox school/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Remove Inline Coordinate Display on This Page Only

The coordinates for the example infobox of Amador Valley High School are displayed inline at the title. This surely was unintended, as the school infobox template possesses no physical location, certainly not one confined to a single location. It would be very appropriate to modify the source text such that the coordinates are not displayed inline, but only within the single example infobox. This modification requires someone who can circumvent the lock. Perhaps @Frietjes: would be willing to lend a hand? Ergo Sum 23:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Ergo Sum, open the documentation page, and change 'inline,title' to 'inline'. the documentation page is not locked. Frietjes (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Didn't know that. Ergo Sum 01:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to add days_in_school_year

We have "hours_in_day", why not add "days_in_year"? NCES has these statistics in the United States. EyeTripleE (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Neither are info that is particularly useful, at least in US school practice. We discourage content that is strictly of interest to the local school community. How is hours in the day anything but that? And days in the year is the same for every school in the state, as it is a state mandated standard. Again no need to discuss things about a school that are totally non-differential. John from Idegon (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

This edit is not uncontroversial and requires clear consensus. ElKevbo (talk) 05:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Embed NRHP

Many infoboxes have a parameter for embedding a National Register of Historic Places infobox (e.g. Lighthouse infobox). There a quite a few schools or school buildings throughout the United States that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, are designated a National Historic Landmark, or are otherwise listed as a protected or historic structure/property by a state or local bureau. It would be advantageous to be able to include this in the school infobox so it is not necessary to create a separate infobox elsewhere or omit it altogether. Is someone able to work on this or comment on the matter? Ergo Sum 02:33, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. The template is locked so most people can't edit it. Perhaps @Frietjes: can. EyeTripleE (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@Ergo Sum and EyeTripleE:, added |module=. Frietjes (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Frietjes: Thank you. Ergo Sum 17:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
No change needed IMO. You can embed the NRHP infobox in the school infobox now with no changes. Simply add the NRHP infobox after the last entry in the school infobox, but before the curly brackets, and set the embed field in the NRHP infobox to yes. The whole mess ends with 4 curly brackets. John from Idegon (talk) 02:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I could see a use for being able to do the reverse, however. There are active schools that have 0 notability as schools and only have articles by way of being on the NRHP (thinking of elementary schools and middle schools primarily). In those cases it would be good to have the NRHP infobox as the primary one and infobox school secondary.
After the fact, I've noticed the change has been made already. Since embedding worked just fine without the change, shouldn't it be undone? John from Idegon (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
No, placing the NRHP infobox in some other irrelevant field is not how it should be done. It's not semantic; it mangles metadata; and it causes spacing issues. Alakzi (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: Embedding didn't work before the change. One could simply add the NRHP infobox after the school infobox. It could not be embedded because the infobox's source did not allow for it. Ergo Sum 11:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Ergo Sum, it worked fine. Denby High School, for one of many. That was done in March of this year. I have been doing it that way for two years and I learned how from an example someone else did. In short, for whatever reason, the thing you say does not work does work. If it continues to work this way after your change, fine. If the change you made now prevents it from working going forward, it needs to be undone. You can't make a change off in some obscure corner of Wikipedia that affects multiple editors without a wider consensus than this. John from Idegon (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: You may be right that you could embed NRHP in some ad hoc manner, however, that does not make the situation right. I find it difficult to really see your point. The change I proposed (which was executed) works perfectly fine to my knowledge and your suggested method of the past involved embedding NRHP in an improper field, as Alakzi pointed out. Moreover, I was not the only one who wanted to see that change made. Therefore, I see no issues with the current situation. Why do you want to revert it? Ergo Sum 18:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

My only concern was the way it had been done in the past is on numerous articles (more than 20, most likely less than 200) and the change would cause the way those are done to cease operating. It doesn't, so no problem. I'm fairly clueless as to how templates actually function (which is why we actually have them, right?) so I'll trust you that the way it had been done is somehow problematic. The number done that way is not insignificant; if it is somehow problematic, perhaps you may want to cross reference articles with infobox school and infobox NRHP and fix them all. Couldn't begin to tell you even the ones I have done, much less the ones others have done. John from Idegon (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 May 2015

I'd like to add a field to capture a school's Demonym. chsh (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you give some examples so we can see what you mean? (I have disabled the request for now because these things generally require discussion. Please re-activate if/when there is consensus for it.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
At least some schools have demonyms that differ from their team name or mascot. At my high school, we were the Indians until the 1990s (now the Red Tailed Hawks), but the students were frequently referred to as "Tamites." This usage shows up in local newspapers back to the 1920s.[1] OTOH, most of the hits are in articles drafted, at least, by students and the meaning is evident in context, so a researcher is unlikely to need to look to WP for meaning. I'm ambivalent. It looks like it's encyclopedic, but marginal, and I'm afraid that entries would almost always be unsourced and would be especially subject to vandalism.--Hjal (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

"Number" defined as "Official Number"

The template has an entry for "Number" which is simply defined as "Official Number". Does this mean phone number? Or is there some other number that is expected here? Can the documentation please be clarified? Thanks!

jbailey (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It's grouped with several school identifier codes so I would imagine it's an identifier. EyeTripleE (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
And it appears that including phone numbers is expressly forbidden. That should probably be clarified directly beside number as well to save others the time to dig that information out. jbailey (talk) 06:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Clarified this in the documentation. EyeTripleE (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Coordinates versus maps

The documentation says:

It's usually not necessary to use the coordinates= parameter.

(...) Docs on how to use coordinates= (...)

One advantage of omitting the coordinates= parameter is that you can display a {{Location map}} without duplicating coordinates.

But the example below that uses coordinates rather than a map, and in a quick search of a dozen schools I cannot find an example of one using a map instead. I have the coordinates because I saw that the school district had been tagged with "coord missing|Santa Clara County, California". Can a map satisfy both?

I'd appreciate some clarification on what the best practice here is. Thank-you!

jbailey (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI, this template is not used on school districts in the US, so your example is moot. Practice, not defined anywhere, but you are welcome to look around and see for yourself, prioritizes illustrations in the info box as follows:
  1. logo
  2. good photo of the building
  3. map

John from Idegon (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we generally don't use the map in the school infobox. EyeTripleE (talk) 03:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Remove custodian parameter

This has been discussed several times in the past (see archive 5 and archive 3 for examples) but nothing has ever actually been done about it. Should we remove the custodian parameter? The archive discussions indicate this is indeed referring to the school janitor and is not simply another name for the school administrator. I don't believe this position is notable for any school. EyeTripleE (talk) 06:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

We've had this discussion somewhere before where I suggested that if we're going to list the janitor, we should list the dinner ladies too. When I was at school the janitor also had a young lad who shovelled the coal into the furnace for the central heating, but I think that job is now defunct, so he doesn't need a mention either. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Done, and may Groundskeeper Willie forgive you. Bazj (talk) 09:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! EyeTripleE (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Athletic director notable?

The template example overrides one of the free "head" parameters to make an "athletic director" label. Is this position notable enough to be in the infobox? If so I think we should just make it an official parameter. If not I don't think it should be in the example; we're just encouraging people to add it. EyeTripleE (talk) 04:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Guidelines are clear that we discuss only the head of the school by name. I think the project, and by extension, the readers, would be best served by removal of all the fields in the infobox intended for names except principal and other common titles for the top dog (heamaster, dean). I would support leaving chairman, founder and president, as those are informative for private schools, and possibly chaplain. In US education, the AD is a fairly unknown person, as his job primarily relates to the business of interscholastic athletic competitions (booking games, hiring officiating teams, attending conference and sanctioning body meetings, etc). John from Idegon (talk) 04:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Removed it from the examples. EyeTripleE (talk) 05:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The only other entries that really stick out to me to potentially remove are the vice and assistant principal parameters. EyeTripleE (talk) 06:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
It seems like there was some opposition to adding them in the first place [2]. EyeTripleE (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Currently, if |image= is filled the school motto will appear under the image. However, if |logo= or |seal= parameter is used instead, the school motto will not appear under the logo or seal (it appears further down in school information instead). Shouldn't we ensure the motto appears under the school's visual representation regardless of which is used? For example see University High School (Normal, Illinois) which uses the logo parameter for its logo compared with Amador Valley High School which (improperly IMO) uses the image parameter for its logo. EyeTripleE (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@EyeTripleE:  Done. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Ahecht, thanks for helping with this. I don't think the problem is fixed however. If you look at the articles I linked above you can see that the motto of University High School still does not display directly under the logo. EyeTripleE (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
@EyeTripleE:  Fixed Looks like it wasn't working if the image= parameter was present but empty. Should work now. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Looks great! EyeTripleE (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Merge Infobox UK school?

Please offer your input at Template talk:Infobox UK school#Merge with Infobox School?. Last merge discussion was in 2007. EyeTripleE (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Removing deprecated image parameters

Category:Pages using infobox school with deprecated image parameters has been cleaned out.

I'm suggesting that the following deprecated parameters should no longer be displayed:

image_name, imagewikilink, image_caption, image_caption2, Logo, Logo_size, Logo_alt, Size and map_caption

Bgwhite (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

There are hundreds of articles that are using the "logo" field. No problem with the others, and no problem with losing the logo field and unifying all images in the same field, conditioned on someones ability to automate the migration of images in the other fields. John from Idegon (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The above proposal is case-sensitive. See Template:Infobox school#Deprecated parameters for an explanation of these parameters. They are currently displayed but officially deprecated. The proposal is to stop displaying them entirely. |logo= will continue to work just fine, but |Logo= (capital "L") will stop working. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what What should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Potential parameters to remove

Does anyone have thoughts on these parameters: |publication=,|newspaper=,|yearbook=,|products=. I am not certain if the name of the school newspaper, yearbook, etc. is notable information. EyeTripleE (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

In most cases, there is very little to say editorially about these subjects. Perhaps having a place to insert the name of these publications serves to limit the amount of mundane content about them added to the articles? John from Idegon (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Remove assistant and vice principal parameters

These parameters were added despite opposition [3]. As one editor noted, these positions are essentially middle management for a school. I don't think they are notable and should be removed. Anyone have thoughts on this matter? EyeTripleE (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Per comments above in Template talk:Infobox School#Athletic director notable? and the original opposition to the addition of these parameters I am placing a request to have these removed. Post on project talk page has brought no further input. EyeTripleE (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Second that. --John from Idegon (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bore but could you please place your proposed code on Template:Infobox school/sandbox and then reactivate? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure. busy IRL at the moment but I'll reactivate this when I get around to it. EyeTripleE (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Hey EyeTripleE...Guessing you forgot about this? If you could take care of it I'd be forever grateful. If you can't, could you point me to someone who could? I couldn't code a template if my life depended on it. John from Idegon (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Didn't really forget about it but it's definitely been on the far back burner. I'll try to get to it soon. I'm also going to ask that the |campus bound= parameter be removed since most people seemed in favor of it on the project talk page. EyeTripleE (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
John from Idegon I removed the |vice principal=, |assistant principal=, and |assistant administrator= parameters per this discussion. I also removed |campus_bound= per Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Schools#campus_bound parameter in infobox. I further removed |vision= since it doesn't seem encyclopedic to me and is akin to a WP:MISSION statement. The changes are in the sandbox. I am reactivating this edit request. EyeTripleE (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
You removed the invocation of Module:check for unknown parameters. Was this intentional? Please ensure sandbox is synchronised before making changes ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I was wondering what that was. When it was added it wasn't synced to the sandbox and I wasn't sure if it should have been synced. I copied it over from the main template. Do any changes have to be made to it? EyeTripleE (talk) 01:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Frietjes can help us out? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

EyeTripleE and MSGJ, I fixed the numbering problems, extra newlines, and list of parameters in the parameter check at the bottom. I have a script which helps with adding and removing gaps in the numbering to avoid errors. Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay thanks. I have deployed the sandbox. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! EyeTripleE (talk) 17:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

This is how Wikipedia gets so unbelievably fucked up. Three dipwads making a self-involved and arbitrary decision that impacts thousands upon thousands of articles isn't consensus. Start an RfC on an issue of this size and scope before ramming this through. Alansohn (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

This proposal has been on the table since October. The relevant WikiProject was alerted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Archive 24#Remove assistant and vice principal positions from infobox. In that (quite extensive) time period there was zero opposition. Past changes did not require an RFC so there was no apparent reason to start one in this case. EyeTripleE (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Name calling, incivility, bullying, incivility, temper tantrums....That must be the appropriate way to get things done on Wikipedia, eh Alansohn? If Wikipedia is "so unbelievably fucked up", please offer a constructive alternative, or at least leave it to those who believe it still has some potential. Otherwise, you just fit into the WP:NOTHERE category. Jacona (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Since October, five months have elapsed. Three editors in five months in a self-involved backwater isn't consensus.. Calling that consensus is complete and total bullshit. Alansohn (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Profanity is the refuge of the insecure. And removing this from the infobox template doesn't prevent you from ignoring consensus you don't like and bullying away editors who would dare challenge your New Jersey "consensus of one" in any case. Carry on with your profanity, incivility and name calling, if you must. Jacona (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
If there is no opposition, consensus is assumed. There are 80 editors who watch this talk page. That is hardly a backwater. EyeTripleE (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Address

Is the physical address of a school a viable parameter? Trackinfo (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be? Jacona (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Please click on the link and express your opinion in the place it would be meaningful. Trackinfo (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
A school is a structure. As such, of course its address is relevant. If you intend to actually list this as an RfC, you need to formulate an appropriate question. If you don't, please modify the section title. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Even though I am an experienced editor, this is the first RfC I have started. Please explain what I have done wrong. Trackinfo (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

pre-zipcode comma

According to Address (geography)#United States, in neither the typical handwritten format nor the USPS-recommended format is there a comma before the zipcode as implemented by this template. Can this be removed? — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: Do you know if |zipcode= is used for schools outside the U.S.? Right now the TemplateData says it is an alternative to the |postcode=, which implies to me that it may be used for non-U.S. addresses. Do you know if those outside the U.S. also do not use the comma? Izno (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
According to Address (geography), only the US and Canada use "zipcodes", and Canada doesn't use the comma either. — fourthords | =Λ= | 20:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
@Fourthords: Great, thanks. I'll see about sandboxing it after I investigate why there's a delta between sandbox and live. @Frietjes: It looks like you made an edit to live which added the parameter coordinates_footnotes but did not do so with the sandbox. Is that the case? Can I sync the sandbox to live to check how to implement fourthords' request? --Izno (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
(Right now there is one use of the parameter.) --Izno (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Izno, seems logical since I added the footnote here. I will sync the sandbox if it hasn't been done already. Frietjes (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Izno, I modified the sandbox to remove the comma before the zipcode. Frietjes (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
@Frietjes: looks good to me in review of the test cases. If you want to implement in the live, go for it. --Izno (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
@Fourthords and Izno:, done. Frietjes (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 12 July 2016 Suggestion

The ceeb field label is CEEB Code, with a capital C. CEEB Code does not appear to be a proper noun, and in common usage, including at the College Board's website, code is lowercase in running text (thus indicating it's a common noun). Cf this site, for example. Since it's not a proper noun, it should therefore be lowercase as the second word in a header: "CEEB code".

Esrever (klaT) 03:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Esrever:  Done. This also conforms it with the article (where you recently implemented the change).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Esrever (klaT) 05:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

List county before state in address

Currently the template displays the state then the county in the address. I realize countries other than the United States may use "county" differently, but is there any reason not the change the infobox so it lists the county before the state? Most of the time the county is ignored in US addresses but I can imagine there may be a few instances when it might be useful, like if a school is not within the limits of an incorporated community. EyeTripleE (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I can't think of any instances for US schools where the county should be included in the address portion of the infobox. My understanding of the Infobox address is it's supposed to show the listed mailing address, which is usually found on the school's website. In the body of the article (I usually include it in the lead), the text should specify instances where the school isn't actually located in the city listed in the address (such as Field High School, which has a Mogadore, Ohio address but is physically located in Brimfield Township), and often times it's in a nearby town/township and the county still wouldn't be listed. Basically, the infobox supplies the geocoordinates but also the address someone would use if they put it in their GPS.
The county isn't necessary at all for US addresses (and even many non-US addresses) since it's not something typically included in a street address ("city, state ZIP"), nor is it necessary to find a location since we have a ZIP code and/or the city name with the street address. For US school articles I don't include the county at all in the infobox and when I find articles that have the county listed, I remove it as part of cleanup. The county could be listed in US schools in the "Communities served" parameter of the Infobox if a school or district covers either all or a large part of a given county, though. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 September 2016

Could the contents of this template's sandbox be moved into the main template? This change reflects the consensus of an RfC to deprecate almost all coordinates-related infobox parameters except |coordinates= (and similar); for more information, see Help:Coordinates in infoboxes. Transclusions using those parameters will be placed in Category:Pages using deprecated coordinates format, and |coordinates= will be used instead of those parameters if both are present. In addition, type:edu will automatically be added to |coordinates=, and it will be possible to use |coordinates= in the location map. —Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 11:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

done. Frietjes (talk) 14:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

Change 19 from School board to simply Board --Cornea Scratcher (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This might be reasonable. Some schools have boards of trustees rather than a public school board. EyeTripleE (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a use for the field at all. If your talking about the school board, the don't belong in a school article. They belong in the district article. If we are talking about the administrative board of a single school, no one but the top person belongs per guidelines. Are there places where the administrative body for a group of schools is just a board without an administrator? In other words do we need the field to list the name of a group as opposed to the names of individuals. John from Idegon (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I think you're right. Analogously with corporations or town councils we only generally list of the chairperson. EyeTripleE (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Coordinates format

Tracking has been added per Help:Coordinates in infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

updated parameter

I think we should remove the "last updated" notice from this template. Other infoboxes do not have such notices and it requires editors to actually know that they should update the date, and thus may not be accurate in many cases. Rather than relying on such parameters, we should avoid including frequently changing statistics in infoboxes unless it is likely that they will actually be maintained. Kaldari (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for edit - brother_school

In the United States (and perhaps other regions), Single-sex education schools quite often have a relationship with another school of the opposite gender. This is accounted for in Template:Infobox_school with the Sister_school parameter. However, in the case where the "other" school is a male single-sex school, this appears awkward. I propose a discussion on an edit of this infobox to add |Brother_school= as a corollary parameter to |Sister_school=. For a recent case of edits surrounding this subject in the infobox and conflict with information in the article body, please see Mount de Sales Academy (Catonsville, Maryland) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCrazedBeast (talk • contribs) TheCrazedBeast (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Good point. We could add a |brother_school= or we could replace it with a gender-neutral term if anyone can think of one. |associated_school= or |related_school= perhaps... although this might be confusing with |feeder_school=. EyeTripleE (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm leaning to offering both. I can see a scenario where both could be relevant for a single school and not be mutually exclusive. The parameter's requirement to back up the said school(s) relationship(s) in the article body will make all this pretty clear. Sister_school and Brother_school are both accepted terms as-is and are distinct terms exactly because of the scenario in the example article I mention. I don't see that gender neutrality needs to enter the conversation at the moment. If somebody comes by and requests Gender-neutral language options then we can have that dialog. I am not :) TheCrazedBeast (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Since the discussion so far seems to validate the suggestion, I'm modifying to request the edit. Thanks! TheCrazedBeast (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Not sure about the need for this. "Sister" in cases like this is not a descriptive word (adjective). When we check the dictionary, we find that there is no adjective form of "sister", only noun and verb forms. It mentions "attributive" noun phrases such as "sister publication", "sister city", "sister projects", "sister ships", "sister facility", and I've also heard "sister planet". When used like this, "sister" is a very common neutral term and used very widely to denote a "close attachment" to another school. More unusual terms like "brother this" or "brother that" introduce a gender bias that may not be encyclopedic.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 17:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. I am unaware of the schedule, participation level, or ratio for subjective consensus so I have reverted this section back to a discussion rather than an edit request (in deference to a more experienced editor). I disagree that Brother School is an obscure term in this particular context or introduces gender bias. We're talking about a relationship between single sex institutions of opposite genders. There is no possible bias. At any rate, I understand the perspective but don't agree with it. Applying the sister school term to a male gender single sex school is awkward, particularly when there is common use of the attributive form of brother in exactly the same context. Now, when we move into the realm of non traditional gender identity my suggestion probably won't stand up to whatever test exists here on wikipedia for unacceptable gender-biased terms. So, in an effort to continue the discussion I will also offer up |twin_school= to replace |sister_school=. I would still like to see more input from others regarding the addition of |brother_school=. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I agree that is fair. Might want to keep in mind that "sister ships" is a phrase that was used long before females began to serve on ships, so I really see no awkwardness in the term's usage as "sister schools". The term applies to the facilities and not at all to the people who attend the facilities.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 05:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
This is true, but ships are also referred to as female while schools are not typically genderized. I think it may be best to just drop the the "sister" term and just use "associated school" or something similar instead as TheCrazedBeast proffers. EyeTripleE (talk) 00:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I can see your point, and I'm inclined to agree that a more neutral term could be applied, perhaps "affiliated school" OSLT. It can be noted, though, that in the other examples given by the dictionary, "s. publications", "s. cities", "s. projects" and "s. facilities", unlike "s. ships" and like "s. schools" none of those are referred to as female, either. The noun "sister" is commonly used as the first part of noun phrases, and it is used only to note an affiliation, not to bestow the female gender either on the subject or its members.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 12:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, that is true. I like your suggestion of "affiliated schools" though. EyeTripleE (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It would be helpful if editors participating in this discussion could provide some sources so we can ensure that we're not either addressing an already-solved issue or making up new words that no one will else will recognize. ElKevbo (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll need to do some research to see what sort of secondary reliable sources there might be, but here's what I have at the moment. There are 143 uses of "brother school" on en.wikipedia. A random smapling shows that they are there used in the same context I started the discussion about, namely a correct gender reference to a single-sex school. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
TheCrazedBeast, if discussion is required regarding the essence of one of the many school infoboxes rather than the code or technicalities, please start a thread at WT:WPSCH so that the 400 members of the project and the broader community can have their say. Thanks.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
OK thanks for pointing me to a more proper location. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I made a post there directing people here. EyeTripleE (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think that 'PC' insisting on gender neutrality is often bordering on the ridiculous. Just to cite a couple of examples from other languages: In German the word for 'subsidiary (company)' is Tochtergesellschaft - literally 'daughter company', and in French it's filiale, also a feminine noun from which our word 'affiliate' comes from (late 18th cent. from French, from medieval Latin affiliatio(n-), from the verb affiliare). Worthy of note in our obsessive Anglophone endeavour to be gender neutral in everything, English is one of the very few European languages not to have genders for all nouns. Many, particularly Germanic and Slavic languages even have a 'neuter' gender. Interestingly in German, while Frau (woman) is feminine, Mädchen (girl - literally 'little maid') is neuter. Thus to take the argument to the extreme, even 'affiliated' would cause concern for the purists.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't really think this is an issue of PCness. I've have simply never heard of an all-boy's school referred to as the sister school of an all-girls school. Only the other way around. I've honestly never heard the phrase 'brother school' either. Do others have experience using 'sister school' to refer to an all-boy's school?EyeTripleE (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Evidently there is some usage: found this on the first page on search results on Bing. EyeTripleE (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
IMHO, using "brother" in this way may be the first step in introducing gender where no gender is meant nor implied. It even forces an implied meaning of gender on neutral applications of "sister", which then introduces gender/systemic bias where no such bias exists. If the neutral "sister" is seen as feminine and inappropriate, then "brother" should also be seen as inappropriate, and a different neutral and acceptable term should be used. I suggest "affiliated school(s)", since as Kudpung กุดผึ้ง highlights, it is a neutral term in the English language.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 11:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
In this context the term is entirely about gender and is intended to be. Please remember the topic is about providing an infobox reference to a single sex school of the male gender. In the interest of being bold and following the advice of Kudpung กุดผึ้ง I'll open the discussion over at WT:WPSCH. I really appreciate the dialog. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. Objectively, "sister" in this context as in the other contexts mentioned is not used to assign, denote, nor even imply the female gender to anything nor anybody; it is used solely to denote an affiliation, a neutral attachment. It is only "entirely about gender" if one subjectively makes it so. We cannot improve things in Wikipedia by introducing more bias, gender nor otherwise, only by introducing more objectivity and less bias.  Paine Ellsworth  u/c 17:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but is this information something that would be likely sourcable to independent secondary sources? And if not, which I suspect would be the case, what utility does it have for a reader outside the school's own community? And if those two data points return as null, why should we include it? John from Idegon (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Most information about a school (e.g. curriculum, history, etc) is going to come from the school itself. If we applied these criteria stringently we would have to gut most of our school articles, including our featured ones. Besides, per WP:ABOUTSELF it is acceptable to reference statements by an entity about itself so long as they are not controversial or overly self-serving. EyeTripleE (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 September 2016

Can the "motto" parameter display in the same manner as other information in the infobox? As it stands, it appears in italics under the infobox image. This is promotional and unecyclopedic, as it appears to give Wikipedia's imprimatur to NPOV statements. It is also unclear; the infobox does not give any information to the reader of what the italic text is supposed to be (i.e., a motto). Regards, James (talk/contribs) 06:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be happy to see it go away. Can't speak to other countries, but in the US, motto has morphed into advertising slogan. And really, what do you know about a school by knowing its motto that you didn't know before you knew it? John from Idegon (talk) 07:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Please only use {{edit template-protected}} when you have a specific code change to be implemented; and consensus for that change. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:36, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
There was inconsistent placement of the motto before based on what parameters were used. It pushed to make it consistent a year or so ago at Template_talk:Infobox_school/Archive_5#Display_motto_under_logo. I don't really have a preference where it ends up moving it to the general infobox seems fine and would make it consistent with the {{Infobox university}}. We should probably also make {{Infobox school district}} consistent. I'm not sure about wholesale removal. Wouldn't any justification for removal here equally apply to the University infobox? EyeTripleE (talk) 02:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Don't see why. WikiProject Universities watches that one. John from Idegon (talk) 07:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
I realize that WikiProject University project manages it. That doesn't mean we shouldn't attempt some cross-project consistency. I am asking why a justification for removing a motto from Infobox schools also would not apply to Infobox university. EyeTripleE (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Because many if not most university mottos are vetted by time and enshrined in seals, etc. Few high schools have that. Even fewer high school editors comprehend the difference between a motto and a slogan. There is nothing promotional about a line in Latin under the university logo. The same cannot be said for "Purple and blue rules, others drool" under a high school logo. John from Idegon (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
It isn't uncommon for secondary schools in Europe and and elsewhere in the world to be hundreds of years old. These secondary schools have mottoes enshrined in seals and their mottoes have been vetted by time for longer than many American universities. Additionally, plenty (most?) American universities have their mottoes in English and could be viewed as promotional. I do not see how the motto of Collegiate School (New York City) ("Eendracht maakt macht") is not justified while the motto of Illinois State University ("Gladly we learn and teach") apparently is. EyeTripleE (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss another template. Feel free to bring up whatever you wish at that template's talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I would think this is as good a place as any to discuss consistency between the templates. Anyway I can work something out in the sandbox that will move the motto down and label it as such. It might be a few months before I get around to it though. EyeTripleE (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Zyxw or Frietjes, while you're at it would you mind moving the motto parameter down from below the image and giving it a label? This may also need to be done at {{Infobox school district}} EyeTripleE (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
done. Frietjes (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! EyeTripleE (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Redundant parameters: Let's merge them.

The parameters "established," "founded," and "opened" all mean essentially the same thing, and I respectfully recommend merging all 3 of them into 1 in the Template Source Code of this Infobox. Although the words are essentially synonyms, I suggest that "founded" is the most appropriate term in the case of a school (as opposed to "opened" or "established"). When very old Universities brag about their age, they do it using the word founded. As far as word choice between "founded" and its synonyms is concerned, a K12 school is similar enough to a University to use the same word for the institution's starting year. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This may not be a bad idea. EyeTripleE (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

"Medium of language"

Should this not read "medium of instruction" or simply "medium"? What does "medium of language" mean? Citobun (talk) 05:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@Citobun: Almost certainly an error. Should it be merged with/replaced by |language=? Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 05:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
It is overly wordy in any case. We should probably just merge it "language". EyeTripleE (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the "religion" parameter

I put it at {{infobox}} for more visibility. It is here: Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as secular as well as religious?. Herostratus (talk) 14:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

This is now below. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as secular as well as religious?

Withdraw by poster. Request for procedural close accepted, and we'll try another venue. Herostratus (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moved from Template talk:Infobox
 – 04:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

{{Infobox school}} has a field for religious affiliation of private schools. Should "none" be an allowable value for that field? In other words:

  • religion = Catholic -- this is currently allowed
  • religion = Methodist -- this is currently allowed, and so forth. The question is
  • religion = none -- should this be allowed?

(This is assuming that religious affiliation is an appropriate field for a school infobox at all -- it currently is a valid field, but editors may weigh on that more general question if they wish.) Herostratus (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Yes of course. Given the current assumption that religious affiliation of a private school is key infobox-worthy data, then it makes no sense to allow "Catholic" or "Methodist" etc. but not to tell the reader if the school is secular. (As to whether religious affiliation belongs in the infobox at all -- yes IMO it does, as it is key quick-overview data for a private school.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 14:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • No: This violates the RfC at Template talk:Infobox/Archive 11#RfC: Religion in infoboxes: "Without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the 'Religion=' parameter of the infobox". That RfC was closed less than six months ago. "Secular" is not a religion. Secular is the lack of any religion. Bald is not a hair color. Bald is the lack of any hair color. Off is not a TV channel. Off is the lack of any TV channel. Barefoot is not a shoe. Barefoot is the lack of any shoe. Silence is not a sound. Silence is the lack of any sound. Never is not a date. Never is the lack of a date. Clear is not a color. Clear is the lack of a color. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Not collecting stamps is the lack of a hobby. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Procedural close: wrong venue, and this RFC close could not be clearer: The result is unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for "none", "atheist", "secular" and variants thereof - i.e. those who either do not identify as religious, or who explicitly identify as non-religious. In response to the additional point raised below, there's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc. ... To distill the policy basis of the debate, the fundamental problem is one of WP:NPOV: "religion=none" essentially assumes that everyone must have some religion, and that religion is an essential characteristic of every person, but we live in increasingly secular times, and for many people religion simply isn't an attribute they would apply to themselves. It's a form of begging the question. Religion=none would almost certainly be wrong, in any article on Wikipedia. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Procedural close per Jonesey95; it shouldn't be necessary to specify that a school does not have a religion in the infobox (although it can be added as no value in Wikidata). Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     04:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is nothing special about schools that would cause this field to be treated any differently then in the previous discussions. BTW I hope that the editors who posted when this was at the other talk page have been informed of the move. MarnetteD|Talk 05:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Sorry to bother you with this fairly obvious question, but there is actually a dispute about this. For background, a couple of events:

There apparently there were some discussions (here, here, and here) whereby the "religion" field for nations and for individual persons was removed from the infoboxes altogether, and fine; I don't have an opinion on that but I see where this could get sticky for those entities, and perhaps it's better to address the matter -- which could get complicated for nations and persons -- in the body of the text. Obviously this has nothing to do with private schools, a non-trivial number of which are operated by churches, and this being a key component of their identity and raison d'etre. (I mention this because an editor is claiming that these somehow have something to do with the matter.)

Then, there was an RfC here which was apparently occasioned by people putting "Marxist" and "Nonbeliever" and so forth in the infoboxes of individuals (the RfC occurred before the "religion" field was removed from biographical infoboxes). Unfortunately, the proposal (which apparently was accepted) was "Proposal: In all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the parameter of the infobox" and this further elucidated with [emphasis added] "Examples of religions: Baha'i, Baptist, Buddhist, Caodaist, Catholic, Christian, Confucianist, Hindu, Jain, Judaism, Latter Day Saint/Mormon, Lutheran, Muslim/Islam, Orthodox, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Shamanist, Shiite, Shinto, Sikh, Sunni, Tao, Wicca. Examples of nonreligions: Agnostic, Antireligionist, Apatheist, Atheist, Communist, Ignosticist, Irreligion, Leninist, Marxist, NA, Non-practicing X, Nonbeliever, None, Nontheist, Raised as an X, Secularist, State atheism, Unknown."

Obviously the discussion was entirely or almost entirely about individuals, the "None" was slipped in there with a bunch of terms that are inappropriate, and none of the many commentors in that RfC gave any inkling of not wanting private schools' religious affiliation or lack thereof to be denoted in an appropriate and common-sense way as would any other reference work. However, an editor (who also initiated that RfC and other similar ones and appears to be on some sort of crusade, although I don't even get what his point is) is standing on the letter of the RfC and insisting, so I guess we have to clarify this. Sorry for having to waste your time. Herostratus (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

To Herostratus: What part of "Without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the 'Religion=' parameter of the infobox[4]" are you having trouble understanding? "Without exception" seems pretty clear.

To everyone else:

There have been several recent RfCs on religion in the infobox:

This RfC had a clear consensus for removing the religion parameter from the infobox for individuals (living, deceased, and fictional), groups, schools, institutions, and political parties that have no religion, but that RfC was determined by the closing administrator to not apply to nations.

This RfC had a clear consensus for removing the religion parameter for countries, nations, states, regions, etc., all of which were determined to not have religions.

This RfC was a response to certain individuals insisting that the previous RfCs did not apply to their favorite pages (schools, political parties, sports teams, computer operating systems, organized crime gangs...) and had a clear consensus that in all all infoboxes in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the "Religion=" parameter of the infobox.

In this RfC, there was a clear consensus to remove the "religion=" and "denomination=" parameters from all biographical infoboxes, not just the ones that call atheism/agnosticism a religion.

There have been four recent RfCs on this, and all four showed the same overwhelming consensus. All of the RfCs also concluded that you are free to put a section about religion in the body of the article, subject of course to our usual rules such as WP:V, WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Well... you are evidently on some kind of bizarro crusade bout this matter which I don't even understand what it is -- maybe you're a militant atheist, or a militant anti-atheist, or just being egregiously rigid on this matter, or whatever. Doesn't matter and I don't care. Point being that rather than trying to figure out "Well, is it helpful to have 'none' as entry for the religious-affilation field for private schools" or make a case against that the merits -- you can't, because there is no case, not even a poor one -- you are twisting the truth very badly and trying to drag in unrelated material to establish false precedent and so forth. This level of obfuscation is not helpful and please stop, and leave the field clear for people who are trying to move the discussion forward, thanks. Herostratus (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
Template talk:Infobox/Archive 11#RfC: Religion in infoboxes still says "Without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the 'Religion=' parameter of the infobox". Without exception means without exception. Your repeated personal attacks do not change this fact. --Guy Macon (talk)
This discussion should probably be at Template talk:Infobox School. However, I think parameters that are not applicable to a school should be left blank. We could list the number of third graders at a high school as zero or NA but there wouldn't be any point because the school doesn't have a third grade and leaving the parameter blank communicates the absence of this applicability just as well if not better than some filler value. I don't see a reason to depart from this with the religion parameter. EyeTripleE (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as secular as well as religious?

This RfC, which directly concerns and affects this template, is here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?. Herostratus (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The above RfC is an attempt is being made to overturn two infobox RfCs, one from less than six months ago and another from a year ago.
Specifically, this new RfC asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.
The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:
The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".
The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:
The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".
--Guy Macon (talk) 06:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of this edit is to provide increased privacy and security for users by having the template use an up-to-date HTTPS URL when generating the Ofsted number link. The Ofsted site appears to support HTTPS. For example, http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/ELS/104246 generates a 301 Moved Permanently redirect to http://reports.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/ELS/104246 which generates another 301 redirect to https://reports.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/ELS/104246. In the template, please change http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/ to https://reports.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/ instead. Thanks. --Elegie (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Concur, we should use https wherever possible. EyeTripleE (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done --Izno (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Propose modifying parameter

In addition to the proposal above, I propose modifying the sister_school parameter to accept the parameter brother_school as well, since the term "brother school" is usually used by all-male schools in place of "sister school" when referring to their affiliated all-female school. Entering this would render the label "Brother school" and link to the brother school redirect. Ergo Sum 18:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

Seeing as there has been no negative response to this proposal, I am adding the requested edit tag. Please replace the current "label18" and "data18" lines with:
| label18 = {{#if:{{{sister_school|}}}|[[Sister school]]|[[Brother school]]}}
| data18 = {{#if:{{{sister_school|}}}|{{{sister_school}}}|{{{brother_school|}}}}}
Thank you. Ergo Sum 20:28, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

With this logic, if you have both, you will still display "sister school" rather than "brother school". Is that desirable? --Izno (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@Izno: I wasn't aware there were schools that had both a sister school and brother school. Under the current setup, that can't be indicated. I suppose a separate brother school parameter could be created, but that could be liable to overuse/misuse. I'm not opposed to adding an additional brother school parameter, but would recommend having one that could be labeled "sister school" or "brother school." Ergo Sum 22:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I am not saying that there are schools with both. I am asking, if you have both parameters filled in the template, whether you want sister only to display . (These are subtly different.) Other possibilities: both display; neither display; an error is emitted; brother displays (there may be others). --Izno (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Izno: Oh, I mean sister school is a more common term, so having that as the displayed label if both parameters are used wouldn't be terrible. However, it might be a good idea to have the label appear as "Brother & sister schools" if both parameters are used, with the parameter entries being separated by commas. However, I am not sure what code would achieve this. Do you know? Ergo Sum 01:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll give you a hint: {{#if:A|{{#if:B| is logically equivalent to if (A and B). --Izno (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Izno: Thanks for your great magnanimity. I'm guessing the code would look like this then:
| label18 = {{#if:{{{sister_school|}}}|[[Sister school]]|[[Brother school]]}}{{#if:{{sister_school|}}|{{#if:{{brother_school|}}|Brother & [[sister school]]s}} }} }}
| data18 = {{#if:{{{sister_school|}}}|{{{sister_school}}}|{{{brother_school|}}}}}{{#if:{{sister_school|}}|{{#if:{{brother_school|}}|{{ {{sister_school}} & {{brother_school}} }} }} }}

Template-protected edit request on 28 August 2017

Please replace "http://www.tki.org.nz" with "https://www.tki.org.nz" - thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)  Not done

Jon Kolbert, you appear to be wanting to change the data within the template on a particular page. You do not need to change the template to do that. Just put the link you want where the link you do not want is. If you're getting a message that you cannot due to protection, then post an edit request at the article's talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: No, the data affects a parameter of the template specifically designated for schools in New Zealand. A Ministry of Education number can be added to the a parameter to invoke a link to the Ministry of Education page for the school. Currently that link uses HTTP even though HTTPS is supported. I wish to change it to protect user privacy and data integrity of readers who use that link. Regards, Jon Kolbert (talk) 06:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES. I know this is a one character change but, Jon Kolbert, this is an opportunity for you to show you know the procedure in support of your WP:RFP/TE request and to raise some of your stats above zero. Cabayi (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Done the test in the sandbox - no issues spotted at Template:Infobox_school/testcases#Everything. Regards, Jon Kolbert (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Done Cabayi (talk) 09:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Could someone please tell me what parameter this is? John from Idegon (talk) 17:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon, It's MOE...
| label34 = [[Ministry of Education (New Zealand)|Ministry of Education]] Institution no.
| data34 = {{#if: {{{MOE|}}} | [https://www.tki.org.nz/Schools/(page)/school?school={{{MOE}}} {{{MOE}}}] }}
Regards, Cabayi (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Propose new parameter

I propose adding a parameter called former_name. This would function in the same way as the parameter of the same name at Template:Infobox university. One could enter any name or names that the school was previously known by in this parameter. The label and entered text would appear above the type parameter. Thoughts? Ergo Sum 19:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

What about making it more general to include nicknames, abbreviations, etc.? EyeTripleE (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't really know how that would work, in terms of the associated parameter label. On the university infobox template, nickname and abbreviation are separate parameters from former name. Ergo Sum 18:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
|other_names=? EyeTripleE (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@EyeTripleE: How about the follow code:
| label7 = {{#if:{{{other_names|}}}|Other names|Former names}}
| data7 = {{#if:{{{other_names|}}}|{{{other_names}}}|{{{former_names|}}}}}
This would create the parameter "other_names" but would allow the parameter to also be entered as "former_names", which would change the label. Ergo Sum 17:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

| label7 = {{#if:{{{other_names|}}}|Other names|Former names}}| data7 = {{#if:{{{other_names|}}}|{{{other_names}}}|{{{former_names|}}}}}
The above code is the requested edit (with "| data7" being the start of a new line). This is to be inserted after the "| label6" and "| data6" lines. All the subsequent data a label numbers should be increased by 1. Ergo Sum 01:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps they should be two separate parameters. I am not otherwise opposed to this or the below proposed changed. EyeTripleE (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
That might be a good idea. So, the new proposal will be:

| label7 = {{#if: {{{other_name|}}} | Other name{{#if:{{{other_name_pl|}}}|s}} | Other names }}
| data7 = {{#if: {{{other_name|}}}{{{other_names|}}} }}
| label8 = {{#if: {{{former_name|}}} | Former name{{#if:{{{former_name_pl|}}}|s}} | Former names }}
| data8 = {{#if: {{{former_name|}}}{{{former_names|}}} }}

Ergo Sum 00:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

It seems that there is consensus for this edit. The request is:
| label7 = {{#if: {{{other_name|}}} | Other name{{#if:{{{other_name_pl|}}}|s}} | Other names }}
| data7 = {{#if: {{{other_name|}}}{{{other_names|}}} }}
| label8 = {{#if: {{{former_name|}}} | Former name{{#if:{{{former_name_pl|}}}|s}} | Former names }}
| data8 = {{#if: {{{former_name|}}}{{{former_names|}}} }}

Ergo Sum 22:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please make your requested changes to the template's sandbox first; see WP:TESTCASES.
That's NOT all your request. As you noted earlier you also want the numbers of all the other parameters to be increased. Firstly, the request system isn't here to do ALL the work for you; and secondly, I'm uncomfortable with the omission of most of the work from your request - so, sandbox and testcases please. Cabayi (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Suggestion - You might want to leave a gap in the numbering to allow for the parameters you've requested in the next section if you have it in mind to reactivate that request at some point. Cabayi (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Cabayi: Thanks for the tip. I've updated the sandbox and created a test on the testcase page. It all seems to work. Shall we go ahead and make the change on the actual template? Ergo Sum 15:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
It's not all working. Check the "everything" section of the testcases - four items have gone missing. Cabayi (talk) 13:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@Cabayi: Just fixed those parameters in the sandbox. It now looks like they're all working. Ergo Sum 21:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Done Ergo Sum, Please remember to update the documentation & the "everything" section of the testcases. Regards, Cabayi (talk) 07:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 November 2017

I suggest that this be added to the "See also" section of the article:
{{Infobox UK school}}

I'd also like to see a heading, "UK usage" underneath the "Australian usage" section, because "See also" is at the bottom of some lengthy material. A sentence such as "See Infobox UK school" would be useful.

These actions will make it more evident that there is in fact a separate infobox applicable to UK schools. SCHolar44 (talk) 20:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Navigate to the documentation page directly to edit that page. Izno (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't have editing privileges: the message at the top of the Source page for me is "You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: This page is currently protected so that only template editors and administrators can edit it."SCHolar44 (talk) 11:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
If you click on the "edit" link that is at the top of documentation, you will be able to edit the documentation. --Izno (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox UK school

Hi, I have added a suggested improvement to the Infobox UK school template. This template is very comprehensive and better organised than the UK school template. The UK one is missing many fields as you have in this template, and lacks the Address and Information headings that help keep the infobox tidy rather than looking like a long list of fields. I did suggest that the Infobox UK school template should be merged into this template, with this template continuing as a 'standard' school template. But if this would be time-consuming, at least the improvements should be added to the UK one. But maybe the fields in the UK one should be added to this one, that way this template can also be used for UK schools - I've noticed you have an Ofsted field which is for UK schools. At present, I prefer this template than the UK school one. Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 January 2018

Hi, I have posted suggested improvements to both Infobox school and Infobox UK school templates respective talk pages. I didn't realise I could submit an edit request. But will provide the information again. This template is very comprehensive and better organised than the UK school template. The UK one is missing many fields as you have in this template, which would also be applicable to UK schools. This might be a better way forward and I was thinking that it may be a good idea to merge, so copy the missing fields that aren't in this template from the Infobox UK schools, that way this template can also be used for UK schools. The fields I'm relating to are;

  • The LEA to display as Local Authority in the infobox, or an option to have it displayed as this rather than LEA, the UK Government website, DfE now calls it Local authority
  • dfeno (previously dcsfno) - "The 7-digit DfE number of a school in England or Wales, available from the DfE EduBase website. A slash should separate the first three digits, identifying the local authority, from the last four, identifying the establishment within the LA."
  • urn (previously dcsfurn) - "The 6-digit DfE Unique Reference Number (URN) of a school in England or Wales, available from the DfE EduBase website and the Ofsted website. The field generates a link to the school's page on EduBase."
  • old_urn - possibly the ability to also add a second or third old urn should a school have been established from a merger of two or more schools - field produces a link to the text of 'Pre-Academy Reports'
  • ofsted - aware this field is already present in this template but should be removed, and changed so that "Any non-blank text in this field signifies that the school's teaching is inspected by Ofsted, and causes a link to the current Ofsted reports page for the school to be generated from the value of the urn field."
  • capacity - the schools capacity, in terms of the number of pupils
  • predecessor - this field isn't on the infobox UK school template, but I was thinking this field should be created, as there are schools around the world, including the UK that have been established from a merger of two or more predecessor schools - would be ideal to have this field situated after the other name and former name fields, and before school type field

The rest of the fields in this template are perfectly fine. It would be a good idea to have a look at the Infobox UK schools template example to see what the above fields look like in the infobox and that this can be replicated for this template. Please let me know, I hope this can be done - thank you :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

lastupdate and template improvement generally

I have been using the full template regularly (probably fifty times). Recently, I was notified that lastupdate was deprecated. If that is true, then the template needs to be updated. I would like to know how to generate a report of which parameters are actually being used, so we could trim the list of unused fields. While we are at it, we could create a bot that uses the nces_id for U.S. schools to update the school's enrollment, enrollment_as_of, faculty count, and student-teacher ratio automatically. Am I talking on the correct page? Rhadow (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Rhadow, you can try using Template Parameters. It uses the database dump, so it's not exactly "real time", but it appears to be updated monthly. Frietjes (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 January 2018

Please change the Tfm template to {{Tfm/dated|page=Infobox UK school|otherpage=Infobox UK school|link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 January 17#Template:Infobox UK school|type=infobox|bigbox={{#invoke:Noinclude|noinclude|text=yes}}}} as the discussion was relisted. Nihlus 00:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Already done by Frietjes — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Lastupdate

The last update parameter is superfluous. The substitution code is not persistent, so the infobox never updates automatically after the first use. The substitution should be made persistent or the parameter deprecated. Rhadow (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

agreed, I have removed it from the cut-and-paste examples. Frietjes (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 31 January 2018

Please can <! -- or, other_names --> and <! -- or, former_names --> be added to these respective parameters in the template, same like Infobox university, as this would benefit the schools that have more than one other and/or former names. Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done for now: @Steven (Editor): Please establish consensus before using {{edit template-protected}}. Moreover, your request is moderately technical and it is somewhat ambiguous what exactly you are asking. If you are familiar with template syntax, please make your proposed edit in the template's sandbox. Otherwise, please describe here in further detail what you would like done. Ergo Sum 03:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I suspect he/she is requesting a change to he documentation Template:Infobox school/doc which is not protected and so can be edited by anyone. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ergo Sum: Hi, at present we can only use other_name and former_name which displays as Other name and Former name. But if you have a look at Infobox university, we also have the option to add other_names and former_names which displays as Other names and Former names. Basically the option to add an 's' to the end for the schools that have more than one other name and/or former name. Can this be done? Steven (Editor) (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Steven (Editor): What you are requesting can be done. It is not supported by the current template, so updating the documentation would not do it. I suggest that you notify the wikiprojects listed at the top of this talk page about your proposal and allow a few days for comments. If, after that time, there is support or no additional input, I can go ahead and implement your proposal. In the meantime, I've made your proposed edit in the sandbox (diff). Can you please inspect that as well as the testcases to make sure I've made the edit that you're proposing? Ergo Sum 18:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Ergo Sum: Hi, thank you for doing my proposed edit, I've checked and it's perfect. I've notified WPSCH. Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Done After allowing adequate time to pass and positive feedback at the WP Schools RfC, I have implemented the proposal. Steven (Editor), could you please update the template documentation accordingly? Ergo Sum 18:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Ergo Sum Thank you and I've updated the template documentation. Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_school/Archive_4&oldid=1131794567"