At the moment a sockpuppet thinks that headmasters are notable just for being a headmaster. What do you guys think? I strongly disagree with the statement that headmasters like this are inherently notable because of their position. If the position is important enough, then reliable sources will give coverage to the person(s) occupying it. Notability should depend on sources giving significant coverage to this person, not the position. ExtraDry00:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Headmasters' notability must be established independently. However, I also believe that being the headmaster of many particularly prestigeous school warrants some coverage if not a seperate article. Adam McCormick02:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
If they are not notable individuals, IMHO, having been the headmaster would not qualify the person to be listed as a notable old boy. Ohconfucius09:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
In relationship to the history of the school, former headmasters are much more relevant as they have contributed more to making the school notable than any of the students. I'm not saying that it makes them notable, but a list of former headmasters is much more relevant to the history of the school than a list of former pupils. Pupils help show notability, but good headmaster/headmistresses are what make schools truly notable (and what attract distinguished pupils and alumni donations). Adam McCormick21:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Being the headmaster of a notable school definitely increases the person's notability, but it doesn't make it. The president of a major university would be at least as notable. Quick who is the president of your alma mater? The president of your school's biggest rival? If members of the involved communities don't know who these people are, then they can't be notable. At least not for their role as headmaster. --Jvv6214:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no inherent notability for headmasters. If a separate article is justified then there must be sufficient independent sources to comply with Wikipedia:Notability. If the headmaster doesn't warrant his own article then a few lines in the school article might be appropriate instead but you would still need a reliable source for the name. Dahliarose14:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I think its important to note that in this case that ExtraDry was refering to the inclusion of headmasters to notable alumni lists (in this case the inclusion of the current principal of The Scots College to List of notable Old Newingtonians), not the creation of a new article about a headmaster. As I have discussed at Talk:List of notable Old Newingtonians, I believe that headmasters of notable schools (such as Scots) are worthy of being listed on the notable alumni list of their old school as it is of interest (well atleast to me), and only a very small number of educators make it to the top of Australia's elite schools. On the other hand, if we're talking about the creation of new articles then I think notability should be assessed on a case by case basis. Loopla13:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
It just isn't arguable (see Wikipedia:Notability) that all head masters are notable, but clearly some are. I agree with Adam that "...being the head master of many particularly prestigious schools warrants some coverage if not a separate article", and that's similar to the view taken by Who's Who in the UK, which automatically offers an entry to the heads of what it judges to be the most notable schools. There was a related discussion at the talk page of Tony Little last year, when someone challenged the notability of the head master of Eton. I'm happy that every article needs to show that its subject is notable, but it also seems to me that the heads of important schools, colleges and universities are likely to be able to meet the criteria. Xn420:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Headmasters certainly shouldn't be on alumni lists but in my opinion it is quite legitimate to have a list of headmasters in a school article, even if most of them don't warrant an article of their own. The name of the headmaster of a particular school at a given date is just the sort of encyclopaedic information which many people will want to know. It is important, however, that any lists are backed up by appropriate references to avoid vandalism. Also, lists which cannot be backed up with references constitute original research and are therefore not permitted. School histories often publish lists of headmasters and can be used as sources. Dahliarose12:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
That criteria for inclusion on "notable" alumni lists (for anyone) already has some informal consensus in this project. I'm only concerned that headmasters are not "alumni" and have a much more vital role in a school's history. I'm with Dahlia on this, they belong in the article, not the alumni list. Adam McCormick20:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
My understanding of the specific request is that no objection has been made re Dr I Lambert being mentioned as current principal of The Scots College (of which he is not an alumnus) but that ExtraDry disputes his inclusion in List of notable Old Newingtonians on the grounds that he (whilst being an Old Newingtonian) is not sufficiently notable. I would be interested in what the 'informal consensus' might be. (In this specific case I think an article could be produced on Dr Lambert, meeting the usual conditions.) -- roundhouse021:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
But if the man isn't an alumnus, he shouldn't be on a list of alumni. His notability isn't the issue there. But in general, noone should be put on the alumni list unless they meet notability standards (same as the standard for the inclusion of any piece of information in this encyclopedia), and can be verified as alumni. Adam McCormick21:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok then, notability requirements still apply. Has he been the subject of notrivial sources? Has he contributed significantly to the nontrivial college for which he is the Headmaster? WP:NOTE should be the only guideline we need. Adam McCormick03:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The names of three Old Newingtonians who are Headmasters, or former Headmasters of notable schools have been again removed from the List of notable Old Newingtonians. The schools that these men have led appear to be accepted as notable as they have wiki articles on each of them. None of the Headmasters have seperate articles but are mentioned in the articles on the schools that they led. One of the Headmasters, Peter Crawley, had a reference to his entry in Who's Who in Australia which would suggest notablity - surely he should be returned immediately. Another, Frederick Phillips, had a reference to the History of Sydney Grammar School which established that he was in fact Headmaster of that school (as does the wiki article on Sydney Grammar School) but it doesn't really assert notability. The Headmaster who seems to have started this debate, Ian Lambert, is referenced by The Scots College press release announcing his appointment. While non-trivial it hardly asserts notability but I expect it wouldn't be difficult to do so. So where is this debate and should these Old Newingtonians have been deleted? Do we have a conclusive result in this discussion. If we are to delete these three Headmasters are we to delete the Old Boys from the following schools in Sydney and Melbourne who have been Heads of notable schools but don't have their own wiki article? (Sydney Grammar 2, Knox 2, St Aloysius 1, Riverview 1 Headmaster and 1 Deputy Headmaster, Melbourne Grammar 1, Wesley 1, Geelong College 1, Scotch 2, Trinity Kew 4) If nothing else shouldn't we be consistent? 124.170.59.8711:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
In an ideal world we should be consistent. In reality it's usually down to a consensus of the editors working on that page. Ideally too all alumni should be suitably referenced and if they're not then anyone in theory can delete them. In practice only good articles and higher are required to provide this level of referencing and other developing articles can have the benefit of doubt. Being a headmaster of a notable school doesn't necessarily make the headmaster noteworthy in his own right. The usual WP:N criteria apply. If there is a dispute the easiest solution would be to write your own articles on the heads with appropriate references from Who's Who and other reliable sources. Dahliarose14:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
There is now an article and an immediate afd on Ian Lambert. So views on the specific example can be presented there. I would suggest a somewhat more relaxed approach to lists of alumni - someone can be included who is mentioned in a wikipedia article in a relevant capacity (eg head of a school with an article). I don't know that lists of alumni are contentious enough to deserve such minute scrutiny. (We have categories for people with articles. Lists can surely be more comprehensive.) -- roundhouse008:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Extradry is now citing this debate to justify removing redlinked or unlinked alumni. I don't think there is any such consensus here. Where in wikipedia does it say that every member of a list has to be notable? Is this something the project is imposing on itself for lists of alumni? -- roundhouse015:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not using it to remove redlinked or unlinked alumni, I'm using it to remove not notable people that do not pass WP:BIO ie three people that only claim to fame are headmasters and they are not notable as proven in a previous afd ExtraDry12:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's ever been a ban on red-linked alumni. Quite often, especially for schools in non-English-speaking countries, articles haven't yet been written on often quite prominent people. The important thing is that red-linked alumni should be referenced. School articles in particular can often be targets for vandalism and anyone not knowing the school will be unaware if the names are genuine or not. Dahliarose17:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Bushey Meads School - Folklore
I am an ex student 2000 - 2007 and the new English block was not constructed until much later than 1981. However the English block referred to could well have been within another older block. The validity therefore of the claim stated in the folklore section of Bushey Meads School page may be incorrect. Happy to discuss any possibilities though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martynjsimpson (talk • contribs) 23:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
There is currently free access to most of the online archives of the New York Times. I'm not sure if the arrangement is permanent, but the newspaper will be an excellent source for many US school articles. The period 1851-1922 is totally free. There is some free content from 1923 to 1986, and a small charge for other content. The period from 1986 onwards is totally free. Dahliarose22:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Attention Needed
WikiProject Schools might churn out great articles, but the essenstial articles are in need of attention, such as High School, Private School, Public School and pretty much everything in this template.
The inclusion of primary schools in these UK county templates is somewhat controversial and I believe we now have a consensus that if any primary schools are included then they should have Wikipedia articles. The vast majority of primary schools are not notable and will never have a Wikipedia article. I personally think that the surfeit of red links is rather unsightly. Some counties currently allow red link schools and others don’t. A similar issue arises with the following Canadian template which has a forest of red-link elementary schools Template:OCDSB Schools. What do others think? Dahliarose13:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
If it was a template for primary schools in Croydon then it should be deleted. This template does however cover secondary schoools and the template therefore is perfectly legitimate. It would probably be best retitled Schools in the London Borough of Croydon as I suspect the template covers the whole London Borough and not the town. The bone of contention is the large number of red links and in particular the inclusion of primary schools. Dahliarose13:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The idea of having a template for schools in Croyden is not a bad idea, so I don't think deletion is necessary. However, I have always generally thought that school article templates should contain generally just blue links; with the exception of red links to pages of schools which near definitely should/will have an established article about them in the future. I would suggest at least removing most if not all the red primary school article links - currently they are just cluttering up the template, it is easier just to add links to articles as they are created. Camaron1 | Chris15:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Bot for new school articles
I notice that the WP Architecture project have a bot which automatically picks up new architecture articles: Portal:Architecture/New article announcements. I presume it automatically picks up articles which have had the Project tag added to the talk page. Are there any bot experts out there who might like to do something similar for WP Schools? Dahliarose14:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Architecture used to have a section on their project page where you could manually add a notification of a new article. Now the section is automatically updated by a bot Wikipedia:WikiProject_Architecture#New_articles. I wondered if we could have a similar section on the schools project page. It would help to keep track of the new articles and identify possible DYK candidates too. Could Boxcrawler be adapated to do this? Dahliarose17:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I could make it post links to any new pages which use the banner, but I think it may be worth building a new bot just to seek out new pages. Much of the code from BoxCrawler could be reused so the overhead is low, and the issue is that it's a significant enough change that even if the functionality was added to BoxCrawler, it would need to be reapproved. So my though is to set up some basic specs on what the bot should do, then I can request approval and write the bot to fit the agreed-upon specification. Adam McCormick20:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
OK then, what constitutes "Adding" an article to the category, just new uses of the banner or any of the schools project templates? Adam McCormick03:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you might have to run BoxCrawler first to add all the untagged school articles to the project. Then perhaps the new bot could be run once a week or once a month to pick up articles which have been newly tagged. Dahliarose19:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Katy ISD and the mentioning of a punishment case that garners international attention
Okay, User:charris thinks that this sentence puts undue weight on a Katy ISD discipline case that is infamous around the world:
My version:
"2007: On July 5, 2007, the Houston Press posted an article about 12-year-old Shelby Sendelbach, a Mayde Creek Junior High School student who wrote "I Love Alex" on a school bleacher with a Sharpie and received three months of alternative school assignment as a punishment. The article criticized the district's response and stated that teachers in Japan see the case as the wrong method of punishment [1][2]. Other news sources, such as the Boston Herald, soon followed [3]. On July 18, the Katy ISD school board reversed the punishment of Sendelbach [4]."
CHarris prefers this version:
"2007: On July 18, 2007, the Katy ISD school board reversed the punishment of 12-year-old Shelby Sendelbach, a Mayde Creek Junior High School student who wrote "I Love Alex" on a school bleacher with a Sharpie and received three months of alternative school assignment as a punishment.[5][6][7][8].
"
I can't understand either version and most of the reference links are broken. What is a school bleacher? Why should an assignment at an alternative school be a punishment? It would appear too that the so-called punishment was in any case withdrawn. It seems to me to be a very trivial incident that doesn't really merit inclusion in an encylopaedia article. Dahliarose13:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
A bleacher is a form of seating in a gymnasium. A girl took a Sharpie and wrote on the bleacher, which is against the rules of the school. The school punished her for it in a manner that was considered extreme. Did you read the external links that I mentioned? I would think that a case mentioned in the world press would be considered notable. WhisperToMe14:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Dahliarose that it doesn't seem to merit inclusion based on what I'm seeing. If you're familiar with the situation and the press it received and pretty sure it does merit inclusion, include more references to other major media outlets that carried the story and any published statement from the district. I would lean towards User:charris's shorter version.
If you need a peaceful, non-confrontational solution, maybe you can let the other user's version stand for a bit, work on other parts of the article (shorten and organize history section and enrollment numbers, update ethnicity info with recent TEA data), and come back to the contended sentences later. --Hebisddave14:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Hebisdave, I can assure you that this CHarris sentence is not a good explanation for this case. It does not mention that the case received worldwide attention (By the way, yeah, I found the proof that it received worldwide attention) for perceived severity in discipline, nor does it mention that the school district reversed the punishment AFTER receiving bad press. WhisperToMe14:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
"The tale is also appearing in foreign media outlets like the Taipei Times and the Japan Broadcasting Corporation came to Katy to interview the family in late June for a segment that will run only in Japan on zero tolerance discipline in the Texas school system."
Although the incident itself does not appear to be particularly notable, it seems to have become something of a cause célèbre. If that is the case, then I think that the first example more accurately conveys the important role of the media. I had to look up "bleacher" and "Sharpie", so you might want to consider using more generic terms such as "bench" and "marker pen", or ensuring that both use appropriate Wiki links - "Sharpie" currently links to a disambiguation page. ~ Scribble Monkey15:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Bingo! That's what I wanted to say, Scribble Monkey! It became a "cause célèbre" against school punishments considered to be excessive. Anyway, I am fine with changing the words to clarify the issues! WhisperToMe15:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Now that you've published some viable links it's easier to make sense of the story! It does look as though the story does merit inclusion after all but it needs explaining in plain English as so many of the terms used are not understandable to an international readership. It would be best to use the terms which Scribble Monkey has suggested and perhaps use the term disciplinary school rather than alternative school to make the punishment clearer. Dahliarose15:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is the revised paragraph:
"2007: On July 5, 2007, the Houston Press posted an article about 12-year-old Shelby Sendelbach, a Mayde Creek Junior High School student who wrote "I Love Alex" on a school gymnasium bench with a marker pen and received three months of disciplinary school assignment as a punishment. The article criticized the district's response and stated that teachers in Japan see the case as the wrong method of punishment [9][10]. Other news sources from inside and outside the United States followed with media coverage [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18], making the Sendelbach case into a cause célèbre opposing excessive school discipline. ABC NewsGood Morning America[19] and NHK[20] interviewed Sendelbach. On July 18, the Katy ISD school board reversed the punishment of Sendelbach [21].
"
With the additional sources, I think the event has become a little more notable. I approve of the revised paragraph, not that you needed my approval. ;) My concern was that many U.S. schools seem to have briefly become the center of nationwide zero tolerance style debates, including Naaman Forest High School (which has no mention of a 1999-2000~ incident) and L. D. Bell High School (Hurst, Texas) (which does mention a 2002 incident)...I think time will tell / it's yet to be decided whether these types of events warrant inclusion, or what the threshold of historical notability for inclusion will be. --Hebisddave16:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
By no means is that overkill. Where else should they be put? in the schools category, where it would appear they have a greater connection to the school than they really do? I think the current situation is fine. TwentyYears12:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Can someone from this project weigh in on the article's talk page on the "senior pranks" section I removed from the article and which I suspect isn't particularly encyclopedic? Thanks! Katr6715:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I have recently come across something. Alot of school infoboxes, have a link to the schools official website, which is fine, but then this link is duplicated in the external links section of the page. This could be taken by some as redundancy, what does everyone think? TwentyYears04:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I can't form an opinion of my own, and it seems like more of an all-WP issue than just us, so I looked around...found this possible answer: "The consensus so far is that an infobox is meant to be a summary, but some reasonable amount of data that's only in the infobox is ok if it doesn't fit well in the article." Also, the discussion leading to that quote. Sounds good to me. --Hebisddave15:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
In retrospect, having a link in the infobox is actually prob correct, because if the lead and infobox summarise the article, an ext link is prob appropriate. TwentyYears16:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a problem with schools being listed under AFDs because their isnt enough info. Is there a way we can stop stuff like that? MarkDonna16:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually that is a school district. They are generally considered as notable and part of a series so they should not be deleted and will get support to be kept. Vegaswikian18:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Currently Sierra Vista Middle School is under AFD because of non-notable. I'm trying to understand what the notability criteria are for schools, it seems like if this article goes, a whole lot of other articles should go for the same reason. It's not clear to me if that's really the best solution. Arthurrh01:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
As with any other article on Wikipedia, schools have to satisfy WP:N. Very few middle schools and primary/elementary schools are notable. If the school is notable sufficient material will exist in external sources (ie not the school's own website) to enable a reasonable article to be written. School articles with lots of references rarely if ever get deleted. Dahliarose08:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
