Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools/Archive 8

Where are people getting the idea that every single fact in an article has to be "notable"? That is not policy. Important facts have to have been "noted" in a reliable and verifiable source, but they do not have to be notable in themselves. The date of birth of a notable person is usually not "important" or "notable," even though it may have been frequently mentioned (in passing) in news articles. A school song is enclopedic if it fits sensibly into a Good Article about a school and if it can pass the WP:R and WP:V tests. If it's under copyright or if the text is elsewhere in WP, then it should just be named and linked. If it is unique and can be sourced and is PD, putting it into a box seems like a good idea to me.--Hjal 06:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That is part of my issue with the template. It doesnt have a

relaible source attached to it, it has a primary source. This, together with the issue of copyright makes it an issue. Twenty Years

08:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not all school songs will have creation dates - so how do we know whether CP is an issue? Do we start with a rebuttable presumption that it will be a copyvio unless sufficient info is supplied to show it isn't? Ohconfucius 09:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Dates can usually be found. Im not the right person to ask, but better to be safe than sorry IMO. Twenty Years 09:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyright seems to be a very complex subject and I think we should have something on the project page about the copyright situation with regard to school songs so that we all know what we're doing. I've found three relevant WP policies

Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ and Wikipedia:Public domain. As far as I can establish the La Martiniere song is in the public domain as the author died in 1906. I rather wonder however about the songs on the Auburn High School page, especially as they are all unreferenced. They are all quite recent, and one was only written in 1961. The box states that one of the songs is in the public domain, but there are no references for any of the songs. Do we have any copyright experts out there who might be able to advise? Dahliarose

12:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiSource [4] and linked to from the school's WP article? --Hebisddave

14:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea and I have suggusted it at the TFD. As long as there are no further copyright issues I think that idea would work well. Camaron1 | Chris 17:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-assessment

This TFD debate seems to have turned into more of a debate on alleged policy violations and how the assessment scheme works at WikiProject Schools. If the article assessments are been disagreed with then it might help to go to

What is being pointed out is merely that editors are self-assessing articles, which is perceived as a

conflict of interest. Twenty Years

11:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There is at least one direct call in the TFD for the assessments to be independently reviewed. Though I am not fully independent, I have yet to directly edit any of the disputed articles myself - so to start things off I am going to fully review the assessments myself like normal. Camaron1 | Chris 11:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I will be expecting a VERY large explanation of the assesment on the talk page (in WP:SCH) to explain why you chose a certain bit. I am not fully convinced that you are neutral. Twenty Years 11:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If my assessments do not float your boat, which is understandable. Then do not hesitate to re-assess the articles yourself, any person who considers themselves part of WikiProject Schools can do that. Camaron1 | Chris 11:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been a member of the project for about 10 months (under various accounts). I think what will happen is you will look at it, ill look at it. If we disagree, we will both have a dicussion regarding it, and come to an agreement regarding the assessment. Twenty Years 11:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That's the way to go. We must understand that

assessment page

:

• It is vital that people not take these assessments personally. It is understood that we all have different priorities and different opinions about what makes a perfect article. Generally an active project will develop a consensus, though be aware that different projects may use their own variation of the criteria more tuned for the subject area.

I know there's a lot of debate right now about the inclusion of this template. I, myself, question its inclusion. But I implore everyone to assume good faith in the ratings made by editors. --Jh12 12:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, all the assessments made by the assessment team have been in good faith - even if they have caused controversy. This is definitely not the first time assessments have been questioned; discussion, establishing consensus and observing

WP:NPA has solved assessment issues before now. Camaron1 | Chris

12:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point - assessment should not be seen as a mark on an essay for example, but more like an input to the next part of the process. "OK, we have these issues, how do we fix them?" Often the same people who contributed the work are quite able to do the next stage if given independent guidance from the review process. I found such help invaluable when preparing for FA. Should also be an effort to ensure that standards are harmonious across a project and, as far as practicable, between projects. In essence assessments should also reflect compliance with

WP:WIAGA, although noting that a B is not quite a GA, a Start is well below etc so failing a couple of criterion does not a Stub make. Orderinchaos

12:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I am glad we have ultimately reached an agreement on re-assessment. I will re-assess the disputed articles as soon as I can; then we can move on from there as said above. Camaron1 | Chris 12:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Cameron. That would be very helpful. The problem here is that the vast majority of assessments have been done by three or four people, but everyone is doing their best and working in good faith. The process is quite transparent with all assessments for schools which are rated B class and top or high importance listed on the assessment page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Assessment. There is also a need for balance to ensure that schools from non-English-speaking countries get a fair representation which can be difficult when their articles are nearly always of very poor quality. Any member of the schools project is free to debate the assessments. The importance ratings especially are very subjective and the ratings have often been changed either up or down. More input would be most welcome as would more assessors. The more assessors we have the easier it will to provide reliable assessments. Dahliarose 12:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have re-assessed the articles (changes bolded) as...

• La Martiniere Lyon
  (Stub / High) --> (Start / Mid)
• La Martiniere Calcutta‎
  (Start / High) --> (Start / High)
• La Martiniere College‎
  (Start / High) --> (Start / Top)
• La Martiniere Lucknow‎
  (B / Top) --> (B / Top)

Reasons are given on the articles talk pages - most of the assessments are debatable so comments are welcome. I have tried to keep my reasons to the point - rather than writing an essay. Once a certain assessment is accepted I will re-list it at

I'm noting these points independently of the discussion above, as I think they form a separate point - yes, this particular problem is in need of a resolution, but how many others are there out there that we just haven't noticed yet, that didn't end up at a contentious TfD where the facts were painstakingly extracted from the histories, and so on? My suggestion would be to have a systematic mode of assessment, with attached criteria to be addressed. Thus, anyone who makes a judgement using them can point to the exact reasons a certain grade of quality or importance was given and can then be accepted or challenged on those points. I don't know how this would work in practice, and my normal edits are to geography and politics so I'm not even sure I'd be of much help, but obviously I'm keen to see that the opportunity afforded the project by this situation is not wasted. Orderinchaos 16:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is one of scale and manpower. As of 25th August there were 8650 identified school articles, of which 3971 remain unassessed. Of the assessed articles only 137 are rated B class or higher. The priority at this stage is to provide an initial assessment for all articles. The higher rated articles can then be re-assessed at a later stage. In fact Cameron recently did a review of all the top importance articles a couple of months back and downgraded a few. The importance ratings are by their very nature subjective but the archives give a good background to the thinking behind the assessment process. An importance quality scale would be useful. Do you have any examples from other projects? The problem with the school articles is that it can be very difficult to assess importance when you know nothing about the schools in the countries involved. You can only judge by what is written in what is usually a very poor article. It's only really by assessing large numbers of articles that you start to gauge the relative importance of the various schools in specific countries and in relation to the school's project itself. Ideally we could do with an international team of assessors but in the absence of such a team we can only do our best. In response to your specific points:

1. The articles are not buried. The assessments for July and August are all available to view. It is only the earlier assessments which get archived from time to time when someone feels the list is too long.
2. The detail in the summary will inevitably vary from time to time. Every editor has his or her good or bad days and no one is perfect. If everyone wrote a long essay each time then we would make no impression on the backlog. The quality grades, as stated on the assessment page, are those used at
   Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment
   . These in themselves are somewhat vague and open to interpretation. We have for instance insisted that all Bs have to include some references. As Bs are so rare, I for one normally look at all articles which are listed as Bs and would imagine that other people do the same. I have in fact just done a review of all the Bs and downgraded several, some of which had been assessed by editors not involved in WPSchools who had not notified the assessment team of their ratings.
3. The so-called experts are the only ones actually doing any assessments at the moment! Feel free to suggest a different wording if you feel it is too intimidatory. Other contributors are more than welcome. I suspect that with all the criticism that the existing editors have taken in the current TfD debate people will be unlikely to put themselves forward in case they risk a similar level of vitriol as a reward for all their hard work. Dahliarose 17:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Working on a project with more than 35,000 articles with about 19,000 unassessed, I can honestly sympathise. It's not easy, especially when you only have a small team to work with but articles are getting produced constantly by the wider online group. I work mostly with

CSB drum, but what about those with ADD or a sight impairment? It's a long list to work through, especially if your interest is limited to two or three items at best. 2 - in promoting something to Top, I think it requires more than what I identified in order that it *can* be discussed, as what you're saying is "this is of critical importance to our project", so need to give said project a say - I doubt this would apply to many articles. 3 - I think the issue on the TfD was a COI one (although COI inevitably leads to quality concerns being overlooked, but that wasn't actually the main issue). Orderinchaos

00:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your rapid attention to these areas - as an assessor myself in another project, it was something that jumped out at me when I first saw it, hence my raising it. Re experts etc - I wasn't knocking the idea, I actually think having a superclass of assessors is a really good idea, especially when there's the risk of dud assessments from inexperienced contributors getting through. Was really just the wording of that sentence, coming in as an outside person, I really did notice it. Orderinchaos 00:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the way the Australian project has formatted its assessment page and has provided examples in the various categories. I've had a go at preparing a draft for inclusion on the schools assessment page which can be found here User:Dahliarose/Sandbox 2. Perhaps people could amend the page as they feel necessary. Examples need to be carefully selected so that they provide a selection from different countries and I would suggest that we include model examples from each category to encourage the creation of better articles. To avoid any accusations of conflict of interest I suggest that other editors choose the examples. Regarding the layout of the assessment page I wonder if it might be best to put the assessments in reverse order so that the recent assessments come first followed by the older assessments. It will then not be necessary to plough through all the older assessments first. The page could potentially get very long so presumably archiving will be necessary at some point. Perhaps the existing font size could be retained in the hidden sections. Would three months be a reasonable period to allow before archiving? Dahliarose 11:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that we incorporate some of the regional school infoboxes with school uniforms in?

Just an raw idea =D. Example would be this ... Template: Football kit

The Toad 01:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I've now added a list of top importance school articles to the main project page to answer the above criticisms. Ratings are not set in stone and can be challenged or reviewed at any time. Requests should be posted on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Assessment page. Notifications of potential top importance school articles would be most welcome, especially from countries not yet represented in the list, to ensure that we have a global balance. Dahliarose 11:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

All, I have kind of taken on the WikiProject:Schools Categories and am proposing that Category:Schools Be redirected/merged with. This should bring lots of previously unassessed schools into the fold and allow BoxCrawler to put our banner on them all. Let me know what you think. I would eventually propose deletion/reorg of many of the subcategories as a result. I'd love some input on how to accomplish this. Thanks! Adam McCormick 02:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm unclear on why you would want to replace an article category hierarchy with a wikiproject maintenance talk page category hierarchy. The two types of hierarchies have very different purposes. older ≠ wiser 02:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My though is that it would bring the "article category hierarchy" into greater alignment with the project and allow us to better observe and manage the articles, as it stands we take responsibility for any and all related pages. This would just be one more step towards this project taking responsibility for all articles on schools. It would, as an added benefit, also allow these pages to be used with the article statistics and our infobox bot. There has already been a request for me to run BoxCrawler on Category:Schools which would, in effect, add all of these articles to Category:WikiProject Schools. But as this project should really be working on a subset of Category:Schools, it would then make sense to add all tagged pages to that category. These categories would then contain all the same articles just subcategorized differently. It therefore makes sense that these categories should not be seperate. Adam McCormick 04:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In principle I have no objection. I'm just wondering if some of the categories which are currently in Category:Schools (eg, school ships, school examinations) actually belong in WikiProject Schools. Perhaps some of these sub-categories need re-categorising first. Dahliarose 15:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm still confused about exactly what is being proposed. Will the new categories be applied to the article pages or to the talk pages? It would not be appropriate to have any of the existing categories under Category:WikiProject Schools applied to article pages. While in principle, there is no problem with simply using an existing article category hierarchy such as Category:Schools for the purposes of organizing wikiproject work, by using article categories, you would lose out on many talk page project banner functions enabled by using project-specific categories on the talk pages. Such project-specific categorization is fine on a talk page, but would be inappropriate on the article itself. But at the same time, I don't think anyone would want to remove the categorization from the articles. Or am I misunderstanding something here? older ≠ wiser 16:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not making a specific proposal yet, I'm trying to clear the idea, I'd love more input on how to accomplish this. As it is, I can just run box crawler on Category:Schools and they all end up in this project, I'd like to do something a bit more elegant than that. Adam McCormick 17:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If what you're suggesting is to use a bot to take all the schools in the Category:Schools tree and add the schools wikiproject banner to the talk page and thereby include it under Category:WikiProject Schools, that would probably be OK. But if you're suggesting replacing the Category:Schools tree with categories under Category:WikiProject Schools -- that I don't think is a good idea. older ≠ wiser 18:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to do something a litlle more fundamental than just create another in a long line of duplicate categories. What you're suggesting is one days work, done by a bot. I wan't to reorganize the Schools Category somewhat fundamentally. I'm open to suggestions about how to do that, but all you're saying is "Don't change anything." Suggestions for method is fine, even scope, but your comments aren't giving me any guidance beyond, don't completely merge the two. I need more guidance and reasoning than that. Adam McCormick 19:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying don't change anything, but I'm having a hard time understanding what it is that you want to do. What little I am able to understand of what you want to do, I don't think is workable. Please explain a bit more about what it is that you want to do. older ≠ wiser 08:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

My thought is to run BoxCrawler on Category:Schools and it's subcategories, then make note of and remove the existing category heirarchy, then reform the heirarchy from it's component categories into Category:Schools but with a easier to navigate structure. I need input on what that structure should be and how much it should overlap with Category:WikiProject Schools Adam McCormick 05:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I still don't really see what it is that you are suggesting. Restructuring the Category:Schools hierarchy doesn't sound unreasonable. If you want more constructive feedback though, you'll need to be a little more specific. At some points in this thread, it looked like you wanted to simply remove the Category:Schools hierarchy and merge it into Category:WikiProject Schools, which would not be a good idea. If you are just trying to achieve some better correlation between the article page categories and the wikiproject's talk page categories, that might be worthwhile. older ≠ wiser 15:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the concept of better organizing Category:Schools, but agree with User:Bkonrad in that we need to be clear about what we're doing. These two different entities (Category:Schools for actual article pages, and Category:WikiProject Schools for article talk pages that indicates participation/assessment in Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools) serve different purposes and should not be merged. And it may be a bit odd, but what if some editors don't want their school article in WikiProject Schools? --Jh12 02:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to upset that balance and that's why I asked for input in the first place. When i originally suggested it this was still somewhat of a half-baked scheme and it's changed a bit since then. I figure that if an editor doesn't want a school to be in the project they can still remove the banner. As it is, I think that most of the schools that aren't under the project just don't know the project exists so i'm not so worried about that. As it is, I'm going to put together a more-specific proposal about what I'd like to do. Adam McCormick 04:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Schools certainly requires better organisation. It seems to me however that articles within the category come under the scope of different sub-projects. I don't think your bot should be run through the whole Schools Category but it would be extremely useful if you could run it through the principal school sub-categories to add the Schools Project template to the talk pages of untagged articles. There seem to be a substantial number of schools which don't currently know we exist. It would be interesting too to establish the exact number of schools on Wikipedia at present. The categories in question are: Category:Schools by country, Category:Schools by type, Category:Defunct schools, Category:History of schools, Category:Schools by religious affiliation and Category:School stubs. All the other sub-categories seem to me to belong to different projects. Do we really want to have responsibility for school buses and fictional schools such as Hogwarts for example? Dahliarose 10:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming we run BoxCrawler on a subset, I'm thinking that the following would be a good list:

• Articles under the schools category directly
• Category:Lists of schools
• Category:Schools by country
• Category:Schools by type
• Category:Associations of schools
• Category:Defunct schools
• Category:History of schools
• Category:School images
• Category:School districts
• Category:Schools by religious affiliation
• Category:School types
• Category:School stubs

I believe that each of these could have articles valuable to this project Adam McCormick 22:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

These are by and large fine. Some of the articles in School types and possibly some of those in Association of Schools probably don't belong in WP Schools but these could all presumably have the appropriate code added so that they avoid the box crawler. Would it make sense to put all the above categories in WPSchools as well as in Schools so that you only have one category to select each time you run the box crawler? Dahliarose 00:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

One run of boxcrawler will pull everything it touches into the WikiProject Category, after that, it doesn't ever have to look in the schools category again. This will be at least a small problem over in assessment as it will likely fill up the "completed" categories with unassessed articles. Adam McCormick 19:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am after some discussion here regarding these templates, i think they should all go, the user who posted them to mainpage was of little assistance. If i cannot get any sort of reason for notability, i will take them to TfD.

• Template:La Martiniere Founder
• Template:La Martiniere Coat of Arms
• Template:La Martiniere Prayer

I just think that they are all cruft, especially the prayer (song is more notable than the prayer). The coat of arms is the only one that MIGHT be a bit different on - i think it should be deleted as cruft, its basically all speculation into meanings and all that. The founder thing is completely useless, this man did different things for each school, so why have the same template - it defies logic. Twenty Years 15:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why you are raising the issue of these templates here. These templates form part of a series of articles on prestigious schools in India and France and the line-by-line content of articles is really a matter for discussion on the individual articles' talk pages. On more general policy issues, if a multi-millionaire has left a substantial legacy to found a number of schools then it is essential to have sections in the articles on all the schools he founded as a matter of top priority. These sections need expansion and referencing, but can by no means be classified as 'cruft'. I don't believe the topic of school coats of arms has come up before. Heraldry is a complicated subject and I would have thought that sections in school articles explaining the meaning behind the heraldic devices is of legitimate encylopaedic interest. I don't think school prayers have been discussed before, though the topics of school songs has been raised many times. Songs and prayers are usually of little interest, but their inclusion can sometimes be editorially justified, provided they are out of copyright. They're much better dealt with, as in this case, in boxes which are not part of the text so that they are less intrusive and more like an illustration. Dahliarose 22:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The prayer is a no-hoper, i wont give up a TfD on that one. The others possibly. But wouldnt his role at each of the schools be different or were they all founded after his death/as a result of? The coat of arms is a somewhat lost cause, too. Twenty Years 14:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

'How to Search for (1) "Latest" and (2) "Archived" ""NEWS & FEATURE ARTICLES" on "Schools / anything" from top newspapers and magazines, also as well how to search for relevant Blog Postings many of which contain local "Print News Articles" not available online - EXAMPLE Mayo College (Plrease help with improving the article on Mayo College, thanks)

As we all know in addition to referring to the main official website if we can research as many news and feature articles from top newspapers and magazines on each subject (article on wikipedia) and highlight top points in our own words or by "quoting" by properly referencing all such research, it improves the wikipedia article many folds and makes it much more credible along with providing many excellent independent unbiased reference links to readers.

• In the following "News Search pages" you could search by trying different keywords for the same subject, and also change the subject to any other you are currently working on. Please be beware many of the search results will not be relevant. Please also note at the bottom or in the left margin of each "search result page" you will see links to additional related "search and alert services" being offered by these companies (Yahoo, Google etc.), all for free. Also note current news searches for current times may come up blank if there has been no current news or feature article written in the last few months, look in Google News ARCHIVES in that case:

1) "Google News Search" for Mayo College: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Mayo+College%22&btnG=Search

2) "Google ARCHIVES News Search", including news from last year and before, has further links in the left margin to break up archived news by year and by publication, for news on Mayo College: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%22Mayo+College%22

3) "Google "Blog Postings" search for Mayo College: http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&client=news&q=%22Mayo+College%22&ie=UTF8

4) "Yahoo News Search" for news on Mayo College: http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search;_ylt=A0WTTks7YtxGMgcB1xWy87UF;_ylu=X3oDMTBhNjRqazhxBHNlYwNzZWFyY2g-?fr=sfp&ei=UTF-8&p=%22Mayo+College%22

• In addition to above you can also make "As-It-Happens News Alerts" for articles that interest you and you will like to work on and want to keep abreast with. The news alert service provided by Google and Yahoo sends you latest news as it happens to your email inbox:

1) Set up Google News Alert at: http://www.google.com/alerts

2) Set up Yahoo News Alert at (for this you will have to sign in with your Yahoo Email ID first): http://alerts.yahoo.com/main.php?view=create_news_step1

I learnt about the above services in the last year while looking for news on

Hope this information will be useful to all, thanks

Atulsnischal 19:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• For example here is a 1921 news item from "Google News Archives (see link abve)" that
  Washington Post
  :

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost_historical/access/190966712.html?dids=190966712:190966712&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=NOV+30%2C+1921&author=&pub=The+Washington+Post&desc=RAJPUTANA+GREETS+PRINCE&pqatl=google

Atulsnischal 07:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You may want to look at www.webcitation.org to archive permanent versions of articles that will be removed from free online public viewing after they've been available for a certain time period. --Hebisddave 14:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: Please read this full section after pressing Edit above, read in the Edit Box after pressing edit for it to make sense.

Please note that the full references have to be put between <ref> and </ref> in the main text in the article right next to the subject line, the reference automatically appears in a numerical order in the “Cited references” section, here are two examples taken from the Miscellaneous section of the List

(Please ignore Reference Number 1 in Cited reference section below, when you press edit (above in the heading next to "Suggestion on how to format References...") to see the formula you will know why)

• Jiggs Kalra: Celebrity Chef^[1]

• Raghavendra Rathore – famous Fashion Designer from India^[2][3][4]

Cited references

Note: Now you can go back from the edit box (presuming you had pressed Edit and are reading this in the edit box on wikipedia) to previous page by pressing the back button on your internet browser, do not save your edit here as you had initially pressed Edit on my suggestion to read the formula above on how to format references.

Hope above will be useful, thanks

Atulsnischal 00:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You might have been able to just link to

WP:FN, but no matter. :) I would note that while skimming Featured Article Candidate reviews, I've seen it requested that refs like ^[1][2][3] be consolidated into one ^[4] with line breaks if none of the initial set are also used anywhere else. --Hebisddave

15:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• User talk:Ydalal has uploaded an excellent image of Mayo College main building: "Image:Mayo Main Bldg.jpg" but has given no source or licensing data hence the image will soon be deleted, experienced image uploaders are kindly requested to assist User talk:Ydalal to provide source and licensing data as required. It will be nice if this image can be retained in Mayo College article on wikipedia. Kindly assist the user if possible by leaving him a note on his talk page.

I am myself not so experienced but have attempted to leave him a note on his talk page.

• Kindly check other images on this article if you get time too if they have correct source and licensing info and relevant tags.

Thanks Atulsnischal 00:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• On first glance, I notice several problems with the image tags on
  GFDL. --Jh12
  04:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit confused as I have not done image uploading before, when you all experienced image uploaders get the time consult with each other and tell me exactly how to reupload these images, what language to use and what tags so that these images will stay on the Mayo College article permanently. From the current information on these image pages you can get an exact idea how I came to have them in my possession and why would i like to upload them on Mayo Colege article on Wikipedia. Note I have also provided some information on Image discussion/talk pages both in Wikipedia commons and in English Wikipedia.

Please Note on each of the above image page created by me on English Wikipedia under the image it says:

"This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below."

You have to click the link "description page" to reach the original image upload on Wikipedia commons.

Thank you all in advance Atulsnischal 05:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• I will try to assist you on your talk page. --Jh12 14:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

We can refer to several sources then write it in our own words and sentences and acknowledge the original references in the reference section, if we dont do so and copy and paste text from other websites, other users of Wikipedia will come and delete all copied text and the articled will be stripped down to a few lines at best.

Please also see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others (from

Was referring to recent edits and stripping of Mayo College article on copyright arguments.

Mayo College article was stripped down from this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mayo_College&oldid=156160948

To this raising copyright concerns:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mayo_College&oldid=156219045

Most of the first version above can still be rewritten in ones own words to remove copyright concerns.

Same is true for improving the Mayo College related article on Mayo College Girls School

Thanks Atulsnischal 07:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

A question for the group: the titles of a number of the list articles that are within the scope of this project contain the word "notable." This appears to be counter to established WP guidelines, such as

I asked

List of notable Old Gowers to List of Old Gowers and amended the guidance. I have to say I'm really not happy about that approach. Xn4

15:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for offending with a bad process; again, I was being

bold (and you are welcome to revert, of course) in correcting what I thought was an obvious contradiction - I changed the article link, not the text of the quideline. To the substance, I think editors are able to keep red links off of list articles without going against established guidelines in titling the articles - they use the article text, commented text, and/or the list article's talk page, and put the list article on their watchlist. Look at List of Sun Microsystems employees: without "notable" in the title there are no red links (and I could give many many other examples if people find them helpful). The two-thirds proportion that Xn4 quotes refers to the alumni lists (many of which very recently created), which is a small subset of list articles; outside of the schools project "notable" is much, much less frequently used. UnitedStatesian

15:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I was referring to lists in the Category:Lists of people by school affiliation. Xn4 16:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I also would not use the word "insist" to characterize my request; I can certainly make all the moves myself, and I was just looking for help. UnitedStatesian 16:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the word "notable" is redundant and should be removed, I think that a notice at the top page would be just as effective and linking to the page without the word notable is easier and cleaner. Adam McCormick 16:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

-- roundhouse0

17:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the beginning of that, Roundhouse0, but a convention isn't a directive, and most editors who have created these partial lists have wanted to define their lists in the titles to make that clear. The strongest argument so far put forward against that point of view is on the lines of "These are the rules". A convention isn't a rule. This convention is obviously correct when the list aims to be complete (such as

List of Presidents of the United States), but it seems to me to have much less merit when it comes to potentially long lists which need to be restricted. If the convention is to be treated as holy writ, then perhaps it needs to be discussed elsewhere. Xn4

00:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comment "It can be quite difficult to establish which school a notable person attended..." is less true in the UK than in most countries. Here, both schools and universities are usually included in most sound biographies, including entries in Who's Who, the Dictionary of National Biography, and the obituaries in the broadsheet newspapers. There are also published registers for many notable schools. Xn4 00:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Xn4, should we raise this question to a broader forum (if so, I suggest Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists), or are you comfortable with my proceeding with the article moves given how the process has gone here over the last three days? UnitedStatesian 19:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Or

-- roundhouse0

20:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think there are some wider questions. If the matter is taken on to another page, then would you please add a link to that here, UnitedStatesian ? Thank you, Xn4 21:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)