Template talk:Infobox school/Archive UK school 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

County problem

How do you put a piped entry into the County field on the template? West Midlands needs a pipe link [[West Midlands (county)|West Midlands]] to be used.

Keith D 14:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

OK I have found out how to handle this now. Keith D 16:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a coordinates field; see example at Sidcot School. Please use {{coord}} with "display=inline,title". Andy Mabbett 21:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes to display

The changes to the template over the last couple of days has removed the display of most of the fields when viewing the template page. All we now have is the image and address field displayed. Could this be changed back so that all of the fields are displayed on the template page and the optional ones marked appropriatly. It is easier to work with if you know what the fields are and how they are displayed.

Keith D 08:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There are now further problems with the changes made to the template. The wikilinks in the template have been removed from fields mainly the address / location fields and so all of the articles now have the fields unlinked. Even worse are those that have dab links on them which are now also displaying the dab link. Please can they be restored to the template or the template reverted back to as it was prior to all of these undiscussed changes.

Keith D 23:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have put these back in. Hope it does not cause a problem with the other changes made recently. Keith D 09:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Enrollment

This is US spelling - UK is enrolment. Can this be changed? -- roundhouse 16:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed it; it was easier than I thought. -- roundhouse 11:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Any chance we could have the choice between "enrolment" and "students", similarly to Template:Infobox Secondary school? - Scribble Monkey 15:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think so - it looks quite easy on Template:Infobox Secondary school. Try chGallen who seems to know how to effect and properly document these matters. -- roundhouse0 15:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I could probably manage it myself, having edited the other template before, but I wanted to know what the consensus was. - Scribble Monkey 15:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree, I'm afraid. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) seems to suggest (to me, anyway) that as much as possible, the infobox should keep consistent field titles. Better to either leave it as it is, or just change them all to students. Seeing as though some schools call them pupils, some students, and some have different names depending on the year group, I would be in favour of keeping it as it is. There is nothing wrong with "enrolment" as it is, it's a perfectly fine British English word and has the connotation of average school capacity rather than just the current number of students at the school - more infoboxy. (chgallen 16:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

The reason most often put forward for differentiating between pupils and students, is that pupils are in compulsory education (years 7-11) and students are there voluntarily (years 12-13). If the government raise the school leaving age, as is being suggested, perhaps we'll have a single term again. Personally I think students is a sufficiently generic term, and understood by all, whereas enrolment is somewhat ambiguous (see comment below). - Scribble Monkey 09:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Having said that, if it's just a problem with "enrolment" sounding too American, then we could always change it to "capacity" or something... (chgallen 16:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

That's the problem; is enrolment how may students the school can take, or approximately how many actually attend? In more and more schools the two figures are diverging. - Scribble Monkey 09:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

My wife teaches at an 11-16 school and they are all called students (she believes that the word 'student' applies to one who studies and there should be another term for those who merely attend - eg inmates). In my day we were either boys or pupils when at school. One could put say 'Enrolment - 1236 students/pupils in 2005' (citing the latest ofsted) which seems unambiguous. (Ofsted use the phrase "Number of pupils on roll" - see eg here.) -- roundhouse0 15:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I take your points Scribble Monkey. I think that the field should represent the average number of students who actually attend rather than how many the school "can take". But I think entering a number like "1236" should be avoided - better to have "c.1200" say. The infobox is meant to give a general idea of the character (and in this respect, size) of the school, not a year-on-year of figures... That's why I'd be hesitant to change to students - it gives the impression of a current, flexible statistic rather than a statement about the school size. However, for lack of a better alternative perhaps enrolment should be changed to students. (chgallen 20:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

Looks like we all agree to change it? Do you want to do the honours Chgallen? - Scribble Monkey 08:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly :) (chgallen 17:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

Coordinates, again

Would anyone object to having the coordinates display in the infobox when entered as "latitude" & "longitude", as they currently do if entered as "coordinates"? Andy Mabbett 10:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we need the co-ordinates in the infobox at all? If they are displayed at the top of the article then there is no need to also have them in the infobox as well. Just overkill & clutter.

Keith D 10:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Most if not all of the info in the infobox is also in the article; it acts as a summary. Consistency between the two methods of input would surely be advantageous; and displaying the coordinates in the infobox (that makes them part of the hCard, and allows tools Like Operator to label the Geo microformat with the name of the article). Andy Mabbett 10:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be best to add the co-ordinate information in the infobox template - but to only display it in the heading not to display the same info in the infobox as well.

Keith D 10:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I rather agree with Keith D; or at least that there should be an option to omit the row in the table. I think coords in the title are an excellent idea and that people will get used to looking there. (Operator does label {{|coord}} with the name of the info box if {{|coord}} is placed anywhere in the infobox - I have tried it.) Can coordinates when entered in the infobox as "latitude" & "longitude" be set up to display optionally in the title only? -- roundhouse 11:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

"(Operator does label {{|coord}} with the name of the info box if {{|coord}} is placed anywhere in the infobox - I have tried it.)" - The fact that it works in that way, unintentionally, does not mean that it should be relied upon to do so, or that it is wise to rely on that "feature". Have you looked at your test with CSS disabled? Or considered how it will be rendered in, say, an aural browser? Andy Mabbett 12:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

These are pertinent questions - the answer to CSS is yes, in that if I log out and view as an anon then I see coords in the title but not in the table, and I see 1 named location in Operator - my answer to aural browser is 'Pass' - I did state at the time that you would doubtless consider it a bodge and I thought you (having obvious expertise in this area, whereas I have none and have no ambitions in this direction) might be able to professionalise the presentation.
But (a separate matter) ... can coordinates when entered in the infobox as "latitude" & "longitude" be set up to display optionally in the title only? Flexibility is generally good - I would like a display=title/in-info-box option (one or other or both), as possessed by the admirable {{coord}}. -- roundhouse 13:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Viewing as an anon is not viewing without CSS. The answer to your latter question is yes; but that's certainly not something I'd recommend. Andy Mabbett 13:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

So how do I view without CSS? The latter question: you have had 4 objectors to the coords being displayed in both the title and the infobox (from me, from someone today elsewhere, earlier from LJS and from the good Capt Scarlet - the good capt always objects vigorously to duplication). My objection is not to duplication per se (as you say an infobox will duplicate largely) but to duplication in close proximity, eg if the info box is small. If some of the objectors will be content if you offer an option then why not oblige them? I am poised to add or modify a few infoboxes myself here and there if you offer this option. Otherwise I will just add coord in the footer (but then it's not named so perhaps I won't bother). -- roundhouse 19:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Disable CSS in your browser - which are you using? I have been able to get at least two of those objectors to articulate any reason for their objections. I'm not clear what you mean by "not named". Andy Mabbett 22:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

CSS - OK, I can try that. LJS and Capt Scarlet both specifically objected to repetition (as does Keith D above). This is an example from LJS; here Capt Scarlet objects to repetition. Now, if you provided an option to avoid the repetition (both are happy with coord title dm, ie coords once in the title) then maybe some progress might occur. The name I refer to is the hcard name, which you say you cannot yet provide in a 'robust' form unless the coords sit in an hcard wrapper, such as a table or infobox. I could try a 1-cell table I suppose ... lateral thinking. Will get back at some point. -- roundhouse 22:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I know what they object to; I have been unable to get them to articulate any reason for their objections. One has stated categorically that he will remove (anything with) microformats (in it) - again with no justification given. The Geo microformat has no name property, I cannot change that. Andy Mabbett 22:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason for that particular objection is clearly articulated - 'rm duplicate info again' from LJS and 'The coordinates need not be repeated' from Capt Scarlet. 'Just overkill & clutter' from Keith D above. The infobox should in my opinion contain the essential basic info about a school and coordinates are not part of this. A neat unobtrusive display of the coords in the title bar is in my view a good idea ... I don't mind how this is achieved.
We seem to be making heavy weather of the name business - all I am talking about is the text names which appear in Operator when I view say Netherton Tunnel Branch Canal which has 9 named locations (eg Dudley Port Junction) rather than 9 pairs of coords. -- roundhouse 09:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think roundhouse has hit the nail on the head there with the first paragraph. The coordinates at the top of the article are sufficient for people who want to locate the school in this way rather than have an entry in the infobox as well which extends the infobox. Keith D 09:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at Leek, Staffordshire. Would it be feasible to use the OS grid ref to produce the coords at the top (or vice versa) (ie make one entry, get the coords at the top + the OS grid ref in the info box?) -- roundhouse 10:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with -- roundhouse and Keith D. The coordinates really shouldn't be in the infobox, it just clutters it. To make yet a further point against their inclusion, if they are added to the infobox, the coordinates displayed by the title are reduced to 90% font size just like the text in the infobox, making them look very odd and unprofessional. Hopefully somebody can come up with a way to add them to the Geo microformat without them being entered into the infobox.(Chgallen 13:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

The template is doing what it's told to! That said, I've suggested a change to coord, so that the title-bar coordinates are always at 100%. Andy Mabbett 17:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not keen on using an OSGB solution as Wikipedia is an international site so we shouldn't assume that only Brits look at articles about British schools. Using proper dm or dms coords is much preferable. To Chgallen's point about cluttering up the infobox - I disagree, I quite like them there. However, I also like coords at the very top of a page and if I had to choose I would vote to retain coords at the top of the page if they were dropped from the info box. To get coords just at the top of the page all you need to is use the coord template and choose the option "display=title" rather than "display=title,inline" which would display the coords both in the box and at the top. If coord isn't in the infobox then you simply need place the coord template anywhere on the page - typically at the bottom next to the categories. Here is an example of using coord (which I previously added to The Kings of Wessex School infobox: {{coord|51|16|30|N|2|46|43|W|region:GB_type:edu|display=inline,title}}. Note this is in DMS format. The nice thing about the coord template is that it will also take dm format e.g. {{coord|51.2785|N|2.7777|W|region:GB_type:edu|display=inline,title}}. In conclusion, I would like to see the coords in the infobox. I wouldn't like to see OSGB used instead. Coord template placed anywhere on the page with the display=title option is probably a good compromise. --Cheesy Mike 15:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Placing the coordinates in the infobox, using {{coord}} includes them in the hCard microformat, which putting them in the title bar does not. Plenty of articles have coordinates in infobox and title bar; coord allows this to be done with one entry. Andy Mabbett 15:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

How about editing the template so that the coordinates are entered into one "coord display="inline"" in the infobox, and one hidden "coord display="title"" at 100% font size? It really does look odd when the title coordinates are displayed at 90% font size: they merge with the header line. (Chgallen 16:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

It's a really bad idea to require data to be entered twice - not least because that it invites people to update one entry, but not the otehr. Andy Mabbett 17:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm not saying data need be entered twice. Just that the template use the data twice. For example, the fields latitude and longitude. We get the template to have in the infobox {{coord|{{{latitude}}}|{longitude}}}|display=inline}} and then later, external to the infobox, and at 100% font size the hidden {{coord|{{{latitude}}}|{longitude}}}|display=title}}. That overcomes the formatting issue. (Chgallen 17:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

In line with general consensus (roundhouse, Keith D, LJS, Capt Scarlet and me) coordinates by default are now not displayed in the infobox, but are displayed in the title. Also, so that this template can be used by people who do not know how to use the coord template, coordinates are now entered as latitude and longitude and the template has the coord template built in. This also solves the conflict between the latitude and longitude fields, and the coordinate field seen here. This edit is backwards compatible, so that any articles using the coordinates parameter will still work, and still be displayed. This works with the microformat. (chgallen 16:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

DMS does not seem to work for latitude and longitude. Only the degrees are shown in the titlebar. See The Kings of Wessex School for an example. Any ideas why? --Cheesy Mike 18:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You have to put the lat and long in decimal notation (which I have now done for The Kings of Wessex School). It all looks fine to me - the display seems now to be in title at 10 points and it is nicely named in Operator. If you prefer the DMS format you can select it using the instructions under 'Display' at {{coord}} using your monobook.css (which is easy). Good work, Chg. -- roundhouse 18:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the doc page explicitly states that it works with DMS. I would rather stick with DMS coords and would therefore prefer the template to be fixed rather than you change the Kings of Wessex page to D.M --Cheesy Mike 18:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the lat/long code in the template I cannot see how it would work with DMS as the "|" parameter separators will be interpreted by the infobox template and not be passed onto the coord template. Furthermore it does not have N or E in the coord template - which it should have together with clear documentation that negative longitudes should be used to represent coords east of the Greenwich meridian. --Cheesy Mike 19:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is a problem. I have fixed everything back (but kept other updates) for the moment until I can come up with a fix. Very sorry for the inconvenience. (chgallen 19:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

Good man! b.t.w. I just fixed the template so it calls coord properly with "N" and "E" for lat and long plus "region:GB_display:landmark". The latter ensures that the scale on any resulting map is 1:10000 rather than 1:30000 i.e. it is zoomed in tighter. --Cheesy Mike 19:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing KoW with new DMS display option. Just the job. --Cheesy Mike 19:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all. It's now fixed, and works properly (at last!!!). The only bad part is that the coordinates can no longer show up on the template page, but that's a small sacrifice. Hopefully there won't be any unpleasant surprises this time around. Thanks for pointing out the problem, anyway. (chgallen 19:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

That isn't a consensus; and at least two of the people you name have not even posted in this discussion. Andy Mabbett 15:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, consensus enough for the moment. If we take a poll of the people who regularly contribute here, Keith D has said that coordinates in the infobox are "overkill and clutter", roundhouse agreed with Kieth and Cheesy Mike basically said that he didn't mind so long as the coords were included. My reasoning is that the coordinates per se are not an integral part of the school's persona. If you think of, say, Christ's Hospital, you think of an old charitable school of around 800 students with a headmaster by the name of so-and-so; not its grid reference. I repeat, schools are not primarily geographical landmarks, and therefore the infobox (summary of main information) need not contain coordinates. The coordinates are a means to an end - finding a good map. As it stands, they are easily locatable, at the correct size, included in the microformat, and enterable without any prior knowledge of the coord template. (chgallen 16:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

Agree entirely, point by point, with chgallen. Occuli 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It took a couple of reads but I would agree that we have reached a conclusion here on the way to handle co-ords. Thanks to chgallen for keeping things on track. Keith D 20:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There is still no consensus. Andy Mabbett 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

OK then. How do we achieve a consensus? (chgallen 21:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

Congrats to both Andy and Chg for this impressive state-of-the-art info box. Let us go forth and attach it to schools rather than argue about consensus. -- roundhouse 23:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Religion, Houses and Staff number

I was wondering whether anybody would be able to add these fields to the template. Whether or not people agree with it, there are a growing number of British faith schools so the religion bit makes sense. Houses are less common in the state system, but they are also growing in prominence (due in part to the "Harry Potter effect"). And many other school infoboxes have a staff number field, so if that could be added I think it would help to make this template complete. These aside, this is definitely the best general infobox for UK schools around. Peace. (Chgallen 12:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

Actually, I've just attempted to add them myself. If I've done it wrong, or if anyone has a problem with it please tell. Thanks. (Chgallen 12:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

Good job! My only slight criticism is the appending of "teachers" to the staff number. All state schools now make use of support staff in the classroom. In addition there are a whole collection of backoffice staff involved in the running of a school. Similarly I don't like the word "students" after the enrolment number as I always understood "students" to be in an establishment of their own free will i.e. aged 16+, whereas "pupils" are there because it is compulsory. In the case of both "teachers" and "students" I would advise dropping the word from the template. --Cheesy Mike 13:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox School2 has options for 2 free lines (to cater for individual schools) + an option to call the Headteacher something else via head_label (eg some boys' schools will have a Head Master). I don't know how this is achieved, unfortunately. Also my wife teaches at a UK comp (11-18) and all the pupils are termed students these days (I don't know if this is true in the independent sector; in primary schools they are still pupils I think). She has remarked that there should be another word for those many 'students' who do no studying. -- roundhouse 14:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That shouldn't be a problem. I'll have a go at both. UPDATE: Done the head_label thing. It should default to "headteacher" if nothing is filled in. UPDATE AGAIN: Have also added some free labels. (Chgallen 14:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

Cheesy Mike, I agree with you. There are a couple of options: under "staff", we could have a bit for teaching staff and then support staff; or we could have two fields, teaching and support; finally, we could leave it but remove the "teachers" bit. For the moment, I'll just remove the word "teachers". (Chgallen 14:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

Microformat problems

The microformat hcard in this template is very poor. All I am able to export in Firefox Operator is name and fax - nothing else. The rest of the markup seems broken. Could somebody who's fluent in hcard try and fix it? To be honest, I'd be in favour of removing it entirely for the moment. Few other school templates have hcard, and the code in this instance is almost useless, and is causing more trouble that it's worth. (Chgallen 16:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

In fact, looking back through the history, the hcard markup has never worked properly. I really do strongly advocate removing it - it's pretty pointless being able to export the school's "name" and "fax" only. Having said that, if it can be fixed then so much the better. (Chgallen 16:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

All that is required for a valid, useful hCard is the name (class-="fn org", in this case). That said, Steinsky recently moved the coordinates outside the infobox; previously, they were included in the hCard. You should also be able to export the address, as a "label" in hCard. I've re-added the "adr" class (which was lost here - prior to that, the hCard had the address included) and some "note" properties, Please try now. Andy Mabbett 17:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Still no change, I'm afriad. Using The Kings of Wessex School as my test, all I can get is the name and the fax. I can receive the notes you added, though. Is it just me? (Chgallen 17:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

{outdent} On that page, I now get:

BEGIN:VCARD
PRODID:
SOURCE:http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Kings_of_Wessex_School
NAME:The Kings of Wessex School - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
VERSION:3.0
N:;;;;
ORG;CHARSET=UTF-8:The Kings Of Wessex School
FN;CHARSET=UTF-8:The Kings Of Wessex School
UID:
ADR;CHARSET=UTF-8:;;Station Road;Cheddar;Somerset;;England
TEL:01934 742608
TEL;TYPE=Fax:01934 742757
GEO:51.275;-2.77861
NOTE;CHARSET=UTF-8:Headteacher Chris Richardson  Ages 13 to 18 
END:VCARD

You could try a hard refresh (CTRL + F5 in MS Windows). Andy Mabbett 17:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Right on, that's now working. Thanks very much! (Chgallen 17:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

Some updates - 29th May

I have updated the infobox with two new fields: Religious Head and Founder. This is now a pretty comprehensive template - good for state schools, primary schools, ancient boarding schools, pretty much everything.

Also, I've changed the location field a fair bit. It can now be as detailed or vague as each school requires. Previously, if the street address was given, the whole field had to be filled in as well, including the county. This could result in odd addresses like "High Street, Lincoln, Lincolnshire" or "Church Road, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire". It's more usual to omit the county in those cases, and that can now be done. The required fields are city (or town, village) and country. I also added an option to have a postcode. Of course, this all works with the microformat.

on the subject of the location field, I've also removed the autolinks. The main reason for this is that the autolinks sometimes do not work, depending on the notability of the location and/or the location's article's name. Automatic, broken links which cannot be fixed "in-article" are not a good thing. Links can be added when filling out the blank template.

OK, reverted this - messes with all the articles that use piped links. (Chgallen 21:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

I've removed them again. They really rendered the format inflexible, (e.g. what if a school of international renown wants to use the Flagicon template?). Also, having gone round correcting all the schools that use pipped {{!}} links, I found a not insignificant autowikilinks pointing nowhere. I think it's best to remove these links now, rather than wait until the number of articles using this template grows to large to be manageable. I'm now going through all the schools which use this template, and inserting individual links for each. (Chgallen 10:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

Any problems, complaints, etc, tell me. (Chgallen 13:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Nice work - it all seems to be marked up correctly, from an hCard PoV. You might like to not that the correct form of postal address is "8 Peacock Lane Leicester Leicestershire England LE1 5PX" and not "8 Peacock Lane Leicester Leicestershire LE1 5PX England" - in other words, the postcode should be the final line. Andy Mabbett 13:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about that. I didn't really know which way round the country and postcode should go. According to the live example on the hcard page, it goes after the state code and before the country - but that's American. I'll switch it round now though. (Chgallen 13:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)) -- OK, that's done.

Thanks - I was referring to UK Post Office standards. I don't know those applying in the USA. Andy Mabbett 15:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Future Suggestions

Five fields which could be added are president, chairman, school colours, and test performance:

The president and chairman fields could act like the head field, i.e. allow the user to change its label (e.g. chairman, chairwoman, chairperson, chairman of governers, etc.).

School colours could be added easily enough, but I'm not sure whether they're really needed for UK schools.

In terms of the tests, we could have three fields: SATS, GCSEs and A-Levels then the percentage attaining key stage 3 level five, 5 GCSEs at C or over, and average number of UCAS points respectively. Or we could just have three custom fields with space for "test name" and "average test result" and leave it for individual editors to fill them out for each school.

A secondary point, but is there any need for the yellow bar at the top of the infobox? Personally, I think that the infobox would look better all white like the American school template.

To be honest, there are far far too many possible infobox templates for UK schools and colleges. This one is probably the best, so it makes sense to make it comprehensive enough for all schools. Any thoughts? (Chgallen 17:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

I personally think that the infobox should be for relatively permanent things, not annual exam results. There will be a link to the school site and perhaps to the OFsted report - let these give such details, or the national press (I think the BBC site gives exam results). Chair of governors might be OK - I don't know how easy it is to discover who this is for a given school. -- roundhouse 17:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I very much agree with you. I was just looking through competing infoboxes to see what this one was lacking, but I really don't think the place for exam results is in the infobox. (Chgallen 10:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

Does this infobox need a map?

To me, the map in the infobox seems out of place. No other educational infoboxes have one, and when it is added it pushes the infobox text too far down. The point of the infobox is to summarise what's in the text. It summarises the location of the school in the... location field. Schools aren't tourist hotspots or geographical landmarks - the main information a browser wants to see when he/she glances at an infobox is information about the school body, not a great big map pointing out exactly where the school is. If you look at any of the "good article" or above grade schools you can see that they focus on what defines the school (i.e. it's students and history) not it's geographical significance.

I'm not saying that school articles shouldn't have a map - far from it. I suggest either removing it from the template and placing the map (if required) in the article; or else moving the map from the top of the infobox (where it is above more important information such as the school moto, date of foundation and number of students) to the bottom. (Chgallen 16:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

I think it doesn't 'need' a map, but then the map is optional and the user can move it around. There have been objections to a map in addition to coords (as the coords take one to a choice of much better maps). The Ofsted page has a map too. Putting it lower by default seems a good idea. Occuli 18:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you: if readers are interested in the school's location they will follow the links in either the location or coordinates field. If the school's location is actually notable, there should be a section within the article concerning it and a map can be placed here. The map is optional, but if it is available then some editors will use it. If it is used, it dominates the infobox and overshadows the school logo and other information. It also makes infoboxes which use it over-large and it makes the template page itself look over complicated. The map caption is also very small and difficult to read. Here is an example of it in use, before I removed the article's coordinates field because it was conflicting with the code produced by the map: Heaton Manor School. Unless there is some compelling argument for a map's inclusion within the infobox that I have missed (other than "it can be"), I do think that it would be better it were removed. (Chgallen 18:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

I certainly agree about Heaton Manor School - a map of the whole of GB is inappropriate for a school (the map would possibly be appropriate for Heaton). I would not myself put any map in a school info box. I suppose you could remove it and see whether there are any complaints. -- roundhouse 19:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Will do. (chgallen 19:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

Done, and with a pleasant side effect: removing the map has removed the gap created by the infobox at the start of some articles. (chgallen 20:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

Split Site Schools

Has anyone any thoughts on how we handle split site schools, with 2 (or more) locations/contact details?

Keith D 10:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a tricky one. There are three solutions I guess:

1. The "street" field is used to display all the addresses. This looks quite good (example) but tends to mess with the hCard and begins to look odd when the school has more than three locations.
2. The location of the building housing the school's main reception is used - the address that one would put on a letter (example). This isn't very informative, but the location of the school's other various buildings could be elucidated in a relevant section of the article.
3. The street address is omitted. This works well for schools which are spread evenly all over a town (example). For inner-city schools, the name of the district or suburb could be used in place of street name. Again this isn't very informative - a location section would be a necessity.

Or I suppose we could edit the template to cater for multiple addresses... but that would really be tricky. I'd prefer not to if it could be avoided. In terms of phone and fax: I think since "Wikipedia is not a directory" it would be unwise to add the contact numbers for every building - one set should suffice. (chgallen 12:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

In the example I was looking at to add an infobox the location & city fields would be the split fields. Also the phone/fax fields for the 2 different locations.

Keith D 12:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I would go for 2 above - there will be a main school address + a single main phone number + location. (There are objections to even 1 address so 2 would be pushing it.) 2 locations might be fine, the 2nd one being inline in the article in a section on the relevant site. (I can think offhand of 2 secondary schools local to Sheffield which have more than 1 site, out of about 30.) -- roundhouse 13:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Think will need to skip the infobox entry for the site, maybe just use the county/country, also ignore co-ords. With school sites in different villages it does not really work to squeeze it in so will have to go with the text description & minimum info in the infobox.

Keith D 13:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That seems like the best idea in this case. If the school has sites in two distinct villages, it doesn't seem appropriate to pin it down to one address - better to give general local area and then expand on that in the text. The infobox is only meant to give a broad idea of the school after all. Thanks for bringing the problem to light, anyway. (chgallen 13:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

Option 2. Andy Mabbett 13:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've made city an optional parameter. Now only name and country are required. (chgallen 13:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

Final tweaking

I've been looking around to see if there are any other fields this infobox is lacking, and I had a few ideas. What do people think about adding:

• A "closed" field to compliment "established": for schools which are no longer going.
• "Feeder schools" and "Feeder school for": Good info, but not sure if it's place is in the infobox.
• "Funding" (i.e. state or independent): At the moment, the infobox has "type" only. Some schools use this for primary, secondary, sixth form; some use this for funding; relatively few use it for both. If there were a separate funding parameter, it would be more likely that all the info would be put in the box. Having said that, people can see from the age range whether it's primary or secondary so maybe the "type" field should just be specified in the documentation to refer to funding more than age range.

Your thoughts? (chgallen 17:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

"closed" is a must. Andy Mabbett 20:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. And the others? Also been thinking about moving "gender" right up to just underneath "type". (chgallen 17:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

Telephone and fax numbers

I don't think we should be encouraging the inclusion of telephone and fax numbers in infoboxes. Numbers and dialling codes have a habit of changing frequently and unless there is an interested editor looking after the school article the information could potentially be incorrect within a very short space of time. Up-to-date contact details are in any case invariably found on the school's own website. WikiProject:Schools also specifically recommends that telephone numbers should not be included. I suggest that both these fields are deleted from the template. Dahliarose 10:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I too am uneasy about the inclusion of telephone and fax numbers in infoboxes. See What not to include. Occuli 10:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Cheesy Mike 11:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree, I'll get rid of them. (chgallen 15:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC))

DfES number

How about adding the schools DfES number? It could then be a clickable link through to the school's performance tables, similarly to the Ofsted link. That's if it hasn't become a DCSF (Department for Children, Schools and Families) number already. In which case, how about adding the school's DCSF number? ~ Scribble Monkey 14:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that would seem like a good idea. Might be best to wait a while to see if the DCSF changes the url of it's website from DfES, or just reorganises its website before adding. (chgallen 16:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC))

As you suggest, it might be prudent to wait a while. ~ Scribble Monkey 13:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

We have www.edubase.gov.uk which gives good infobox-type info for Leicester Grammar School inc the LEA/dfes number (856/6006). http://www.dfes.gov.uk/cgi-bin/performancetables/school_06.pl?Mode=Z&No=8566006&Type=LA&Num=856&Phase=1&Year=06&Base=b gives a 2006 dfes page (ie the latest) for Leicester Grammar School which I see includes 8566006. So it looks both feasible and useful, assuming the terminology is consistent from school to school. (It needs the LEA number as well as the Dfes number.) -- roundhouse0 17:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You would need the LEA number and school number, as you point out. Most of the Secondary schools in Buckinghamshire have a link to their tables, and need to be individually updated each year as the url changes. It would be much easier for this template to get updated when the results for a year are uploaded, and for each school to automatically pick up the latest tables. ~ Scribble Monkey 13:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Specialist status

Does anyone have a problem with changing the text Specialist status to Specialism, and possibly adding plural functionality similar to that used for mottoes? ~ Scribble Monkey 09:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I personally think Specialist Status sounds better than Specialism. The plural thing's a good idea, though - would be useful. _TheIslander 11:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also prefer to change the wording to specialism. Specialist status seems odd and suggests a response 'yes' or 'no' rather than a description of the specialism.Dahliarose 20:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of making the changes. I hope nobody minds. ~ Scribble Monkey 09:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Name of template

I should like to suggest that this template be renamed Infobox UK school, replacing the present deprecated one. Does anyone object to that?

GB is the island of Great Britain. The template summary says "This template is designed for all state and independent Primary Schools, Secondary Schools, and Sixth Form colleges in the UK." Also, the template replaces {{Infobox UK schools}} and {{Infobox UK school}}, as well as {{Infobox English Public School}}, all now deprecated. Xn4 12:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, definitely. If you know how to do it so that no articles are affected then go for it. chgallen 12:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

My hesitation is that if I were to move this template to Infobox UK school now, I guess it would still be deprecated, so we should need to get it undeprecated! May be better to let the delete go ahead before moving. Xn4 14:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That's right. Hopefully, once Template:Infobox UK School is deleted the namespace will just become empty -- then we can move in. chgallen 14:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense, but presumably every article using the template would have to be changed to use the new name, unless you're suggesting relying on a redirect? This could provide some interesting edit history, which could look like a revert to an older template. I suppose that as long as the edit summary is sufficiently detailed, it would be ok. ~ Scribble Monkey 14:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a bot would be quite useful in that case. chgallen 14:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought that an automated solution would be best, but I don't know enough about the Wikipedia tools to know what is possible. ~ Scribble Monkey 16:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

This template now redirects to Template:Infobox UK School, but all the discussions have been left behind, and there doesn't appear to be any automatic renaming occurring. Is it going to be left like this, or is someone planning to sort it out? ~ Scribble Monkey 09:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to sort it out. I've moved the template documentation, I'll see what can be done about the discussion. We should then request a bot on the wikiproject page, I think. chgallen 09:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Robertvan1 and I have changed all the schools to use the new name, so it looks like we just need an admin to move this page, as per your request. ~ Scribble Monkey 15:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've put in a request for speedy deletion on the other talk page, so hopefully this one will move across sometime soon. Once it has moved, should this page and the main page it's attached to be deleted? The redirect would be pretty pointless. CR7 (message me) 13:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Obtaining data

I thought I could put these links here to help people to obtain data for the templates:

• Department for Children, Schools and Families (formerly Department for Education and Skills)
• Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (OFSTED)
• Directgov

Using the above links can fill in the most important and majority of the template. I hope they're of some help, CR7 (message me) 19:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Websites

Websites should be displayed as plain URLs, for the benefit of people viewing printed pages. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point, but it could equally apply to references where the url is often obscured by the page's title. ~ Scribble Monkey 16:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

School logo

Would it be possible to have a white background cell colour for the school logo image, rather than the current grey? Most images will have a white background themselves, so would tend to look better with a white surround within the template. I think this is done in Template:Infobox Secondary school. ~ Scribble Monkey 14:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have an opinion on this one? ~ Scribble Monkey 10:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about this. I think an all white background might be better than a separate background colour for the logo section. I've no idea about the coding for these templates but is there perhaps some way that a box rule can be added to the logos if required? I would actually prefer a different colour to grey. I did at one point have one rather nice infobox with a very fetching pale yellow. Could we perhaps have an option to choose our background colours or is the idea to have a consistent grey colour scheme for all UK schools? Dahliarose 10:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It is interesting that someone has requested that the background is made transparent on Template:Infobox Secondary school, which was the example I quoted above. The ideal situation is that the logos themselves all have a transparent background, but if they are obtained from a school website, that may not always be the case. I'm sure we could add the infobox background colour as a parameter, but I suspect that most people would prefer a uniform approach. ~ Scribble Monkey 10:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Position of postcode

Would it be possible to change the position of the postcode so that it goes after the county and before the country? This is the normal position in postal addresses. It looks a bit odd having the postcode in its current position. Dahliarose 12:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Seemed like an obvious oversight - I've swapped postcode and country round. Halsteadk 17:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Degrees and minutes for co-ordinates

I'm trying to add co-ordinates to some school infoboxes and can't seem to get the DMS function to work so that the degrees and minutes are displayed. See Reading School and St Crispin's School for examples. I was hoping that the co-ordinates would be displayed in the same way as those for Eton College. However, Eton haven't entered their co-ordinates in the infobox. Is there a work-round for this template or should I follow the same coding as Eton and leave the co-ordinates out of the infobox altogether? Also the decimal equivalents don't seem to take you to the correct location on Google Earth. For example 51 26 54 N, 00 57 18 W takes me to Reading School but 51.2654, 00.5718 takes me to a field near Bearsted, Kent. Is there some sort of formula for converting degrees, minutes and seconds into a decimal-equivalent format? Dahliarose 09:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This site: http://www.nearby.org.uk/coord.cgi can do this conversion (and a whole lot more). It can convert directly from a UK postcode, so you may want to just enter the school's postcode on to that site, then use the decimal latitude and longitude (rather than dms). You might need to tweak the position to centre it on the building, but only by about 0.0005 if at all. In answer to the problem, you can calculate decimal from dms but have to take into account there are only 60 minutes in a degree and 60 seconds in a minute - your conversion has assumed there are 100. So 51deg 26' 54" = 51+(26/60)+(54/3600) = 51.4483. Also longitude W is negative. Halsteadk 13:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

See Template:Infobox UK school - add the dms row and put some text in it to display by default in dms; see eg Leicester Grammar School. (In fact Template:Infobox UK school uses Template:Coord and you can override the default settings by following the instructions for coord via a monobook edit - see display.) -- roundhouse0 14:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have in fact now changed all the articles in question so that the co-ordinates are no longer in the infobox so that I can achieved the desired DMS display. I was brought up with pounds, ounces, minutes and seconds and in my ignorance hadn't realised that there was a decimal equivalent of DMS! I just thought it was a different way of entering the same numbers. Now I know! I don't understand the Leicester Grammar School example as the display is in a decimal format. As far as I can establish it's not possible to put the co-ordinates in the infobox and have them displayed in the DMS format or have I missed something. Dahliarose 14:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Leicester Grammar School default display seems to be decimal (using Opera). I'll ask CHGallen (who last edited the coords bit) to look at it again. I don't myself see any problem in having the coords outside the infobox. -- roundhouse0 15:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how that bug crept in - it worked last time I checked. Anyhow, I think it's fixed now (at least with my computer running firefox it is). It works like this: you must always enter coords as decimals, but if you enter anything into "dms" it will convert them into and display them as degrees minutes and seconds. chgallen 21:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the reason that the coords are in the infobox is that it adds them to the infobox microformat - i.e. it makes them machine readable with a nice title. Though outside and inside work well enough. chgallen 21:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ignore that. chgallen 22:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

postal address vs location

How should we handle the situation where the location and the postal address are different? The layout of "location" makes it look like a postal address, but there may be differences. We've just been discussing this at Sutton High School (London). Should there be a separate field for "Postal address if different"? Any thoughts? PamD 11:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is still being discussed at Talk:Sutton High School (London). The Royal Mail no longer includes county in (any? most?) official postal addresses. The county which used to be included in some addresses, and may still be the preferred style of the school itself, may not be the local government area it is currently in (since 1965 in this case). I'd like to be able to show the school's preferred version of its postal address, as well as the fact of which borough it is in. The template doesn't help much. In an ideal world the infobox would display "postal address" and allow for a "town not in postal address" and "county not in postal address" for information. I don't know how or whether we could get to there from here. Perhaps introduce two new fields for "county-nonpostal" and "city-nonpostal", to be used where useful, and gradually move towards emptying the "county" field where it is not part of the postal address? Could "Location" then be changed to "Postal address" to reflect reality? PamD (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There are other areas where the county used in postal addresses by the school is not that of the location of the school - see http://www.ingleton-pri.n-yorks.sch.uk/prospect/details.htm where a school in North Yorkshire uses the Lancashire address of its post town. The official version of the address seems to be CARNFORTH and postcode - but the location of the school is North Yorkshire, and it is a long way from Carnforth. PamD (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

Would anyone object to me merging this into Template:Infobox School? --MZMcBride 02:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Trying it out on Sutton High School (London) at User:PamD/SHS - the small image of the logo gets expanded beyond its resolution, and the address being run on together manages to split the postcode onto two lines which looks pretty dreadful. I suggest the template needs a bit more work before UK school gets merged into it. PamD 08:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong objection. The template tries to be all things to everyone and therefore ends up overly complex. The UK template has just enough parameters to suit UK schools. --Cheesy Mike 09:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Strong objection. This template has been adopted by virtually all UK schools to meet specific UK requirements. Infobox School does not meet the requirements of UK schools and seems to be much better suited to American schools. Dahliarose 10:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Also strong object (see my comments on Template talk:Infobox Aust school private). This is one of the best school infoboxes we have and Template:Infobox School is inferior. This template works well for UK schools, so leave it be. Its way too difficult and rediculous to try and cater to the world in one infobox. Loopla 05:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Independent Schools Inspectorate

ISI have modified their website and it may now be possible to include the ISA report as a number in the infobox for UK independent schools, in a similar way to the ofsted report for state schools. Snowman (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates do not work! Can someone please fix this?

For Ivybridge Community College they do not work. I don't know if I’m doing something wrong or there's an actual error with the template. The coordinates currently on the article are not correct, so if you are going to fix it for me can you please find the correct coordinates (just type Ivybridge Community College on Google maps or Google earth). Bsrboy (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggest just taking the direction letters from the co-ordinate data as it is not expecting the N & W. Keith D (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done Occuli has fixed it. Bsrboy (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There was problem with the dms=dms parameter on Blake Valley Technology College. As I couldn't fix it, I removed it for now. -- User:Docu

DMS coordinates

I much prefer degrees/minutes/second formatting when presenting coordinates and that is a more common use on maps in Britain. Would anyone object if I go ahead and at "format=dms" where the coord template is used?

You can set your preferences so you always see dms with {{coord}} - see its documentation at Template:Coord#Display for details. Occuli (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that, I just think for the non monobook.js savvy Wikpedia reader (which is about 99% of them) it would be better to use an easier to understand / more common display format. --TimTay (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see you can set any individual school to display dms (see documentation for this infobox). However recent edits by user Docu suggest there may be some problem with this (see hist). I am not in favour of forcing this template to show dms for all UK schools ... I have no reason to think that dms is better understood in the UK than is dec. (I am personally attached to OSGB36.) Occuli (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The DMS option is definitely broken as the code has been removed. I'm not comfortable enough with IF statements in Wikipedia's rather twisted logic to be able to fix it. --TimTay (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right - see eg Leicester Grammar School. I am fairly sure it was working a few months back, but share your concerns about tinkering with impenetrable template text. It does work in coord. Occuli (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference numbers

The 6-digit numbers called Ofsted numbers here are called Unique Reference Numbers (URNs) by DCSF. Each state and independent school in England and Wales has such a number, which is also the index for their EduBase record, e.g. http://www.edubase.gov.uk/establishment/summary.xhtml?urn=110158 though only state and a few independent schools in England have Ofsted pages. Each of these schools also has a 7-digit number assigned by the DCSF, consisting of a 3-digit LEA code and a 4-digit establishment number. For state and independent schools in England, this number is used as a key by the Directgov schoolsfinder pages, e.g. http://schoolsfinder.direct.gov.uk/8686016/overview/ though these will not include profiles or Ofsted reports for independent schools.

So we could add an EduBase link for free, and perhaps we should add a field for the DCSF number to link to the Schoolsfinder page. Kanguole 17:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

LEA: anachronistic?

There are local authorities responsible for education, but these are under the directorate of children's services: there are no longer Local Education Authorities in any sense that merits capitalisation. I would suggest that LEA should be replaced with Local Authority. Kevin McE (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. --TimTay (talk) 08:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Local Authority would appear to be the correct term, but a bit long for the infobox. Would abbreviating it to LA be acceptable? Currently Local Authority (United Kingdom) redirects to the LEA page, so it would need to be decided where to link the caption to. ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Redundant Entities in the Blank Syntax

• motto_pl
• founder_pl
• specialist_pl

These three appear in the blank syntax, but are not in the code of the template. Using these on an infobox produces nothing. Suggest removing them from here if they have no effect on an article TTGL (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

They are in the code for the template and pluralise the entry when given. Keith D (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

DCSF Number and DCSF URN

DCSF URN appears to be same as the Ofsted URN. If this is the case, would it be better to put the hyperlink on the DCSF Number field, using the Ofsted/DCSF URN and omit the DCSF URN altogether as a duplicate? ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I gave some details in Reference numbers above. Ofsted does use the DCSF URN, but some schools with URNs are not inspected by Ofsted (most independent schools). I think if we were designing it from scratch, we'd have fields for the two numbers and the ofsted field would be a yes/no for whether the school was inspected by Ofsted. Perhaps we could get from here to there using a bot?

Another question is whether the 7-digit number should be split into two fields, lea_number (or la_number) and establishment_number. In that case the lea field would be redundant. Kanguole 11:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox at Blackheath High School

Help please? I've just attempted to add an image to the above infobox, but however I input it, I'm still left with bits of coding showing in the saved infobox. It also needs an image caption "Music room and dance studio" but the infobox has no slot for that. Thanks. --Storye book (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. The infobox has no provision for an image caption. Kanguole

• Ah so that's how to do it! Thank you.--Storye book (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Caption

Would it be worth adding a 'caption' field to the infobox? I know of a few articles in which such would be quite useful. Thanks, DotComCairney 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

approx.

Please! "c." is not the proper abbreviation for "approximately" (as in number of students); it stands for "circa", meaning "in approximately", as in a date range (c. 44 BC). "Approx." is the correct abbreviation. Radiopathy •talk• 06:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

patron saint

Could somebody please add a field for patron saint? I don't know how to. Many thanks. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 14:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

UKPRN

Would it be prudent to add a UKPRN field? ModWilson (talk)

What is it? Keith D (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

A "UK Provider Reference Number" on the UK Register of Learning Providers; see http://www.ukrlp.co.uk/ Seems like a reasonable thing to add. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

However unlike the URN (aka Ofsted number) and DCSF number, it doesn't seem to index any useful info. Kanguole 13:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Clayton1962, 22 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Motto is Include Inspire Empower not Listen Respect Yourself

Established 1933 not 1972

Number of teacher 110

DFE number is 3014023

OFSTED number is wrong

please contact me at headteacher@eastbrook.bardaglea.org.uk for more information - I am the headteacher of the school and can provide you with correct information

Clayton1962 (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: I assume you are referring to the Eastbrook Comprehensive School page? Simply edit that page, editing the template here will not change it. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 193.164.103.41, 27 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Headmaster name now MR M Long 193.164.103.41 (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: What page were you referring to? Simply edit the article of the school instead of the template, which will not be semiprotected. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.148.128.28, 28 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Bryn Hafren Comprehensive School opened in September 1973 not 1971

86.148.128.28 (talk) 11:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Please provide a reliable source and detail the text you would like to change. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit requests

The revised template displayed view/discuss/edit links (for the template) at the bottom of each occurrence of the infobox. People who wanted to change the data in the infobox on some school's page were clicking on the edit link in the infobox, getting the semi-protected message on the template, and then clicking on the discuss link to leave a request here. I've deleted the name parameter, which will turn off those links. Kanguole 11:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.157.191.240, 8 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Principal is Trish Stringer. William Downey is an ex-student.

Visit http://www.brookeweston.org to verify

Thanks

86.157.191.240 (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

 Not done This is a template that is used on lots of school articles not a specific school. You need to add this to the talk page of the school article that you need changing. Keith D (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ages

{{edit semi-protected}} When the | lower_age parameter is not entered the ages field shows as "+" like this:

Infobox school/Archive UK school 1

Could someone fix this please? Or alternatively does the doc need to be updated to state that this field is mandatory? Mhiji (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Good spot, thanks! - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 22:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

URNs and Ofsted

What this template has been calling an Ofsted number is in fact the Unique Reference Number (URN) assigned by the Department for Education, which is also the index of its EduBase record. However all state and independent schools in England and Wales have URNs, but only state (and a few independent) schools in England are inspected by Ofsted. So I think we should have the number in the urn field only (generating an EduBase link), and use a non-blank value in the ofsted field to indicate that the school is inspected by Ofsted (generating an Ofsted link). We could get from here to there in stages:

1. document and implement the above, but with the temporary feature that if ofsted is set but urn is not, the value is used for the Ofsted link.
2. run a bot to fill in empty urn values from ofsted values, setting the ofsted value to "yes".
3. remove the temporary hack from the template.

Any thoughts? Kanguole 16:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me (and I'm a bot operator, so I can make it happen too :) ) - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 20:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the label should appear as Ofsted - it's probably the name most people in the UK relate to when looking for HM Inspectors' reports.--Kudpung (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing to change the label displayed by the infobox, but rather the field in the source where the number is given. Currently there are two fields asking for the same number. (And on Ofsted pages this number is called the "Unique Reference Number".) Kanguole 09:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Jarry1250, thanks for the offer: that will be very useful. I will make this change unless someone objects soon. Kanguole 11:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the template to use |urn= for the Ofsted link if both it and |ofsted= are set (or |ofsted= if only that is set). I think the next step needs a bot to:

1. rename |dcsfurn= to |urn=.
2. if |ofsted= is set but |urn= isn't, copy the value from |ofsted= to |urn= and set |ofsted=yes.
3. if |ofsted= and |urn= are both set to the same value, set |ofsted=yes.

Kanguole 00:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, many of these infoboxes have junk in the |ofsted= field. The value should only be copied to |urn= if it consists of 6 digits. Kanguole 13:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Website

Would anyone object to removing the |website_name= parameter and instead using {{URL}} in the website field per WP:UF? Mhiji (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to use {{URL}} and pass the website_name as the second parameter if supplied. Kanguole 17:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally feel that the |website_name= parameter is a bit pointless and just unnecessarily complicates things. Most similar infoboxes (e.g. {{Infobox school}}) just use one parameter for the website. Just using {{URL}} without a second parameter also means that all of these infoboxes will have consistent formatting. If for any reason the standard formatting provided by {{URL}} is not adequate (e.g. if the URL is excessively long), the second parameter could be used. Also nearly all of the values entered in the |website_name= are just simplified forms of the URL (without the http:// or www.) anyway (per the doc). Mhiji (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference in that {{Infobox school}} expects users to call {{URL}}, whereas this template would call {{URL}} itself (as it does {{coord}}). Thus in the (admittedly rare) case where a second parameter is needed, it would have to come from another field of the template. Kanguole 19:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't make it clear but I wasn't proposing to use {{URL}} within the template. I meant to do this in the same way as at {{Infobox school}} by changing the doc to just say "Use {{URL}}" and deleting the |website_name= parameter altogether. Mhiji (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I would support that approach. I find the website_name parameter clumsy. --Simple Bob (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Mhiji, I realize that was what you were proposing, but I think the current approach of the user just supplying data and the template generating the link is cleaner and friendlier than the {{Infobox school}} approach. (But if the template generated the link using {{URL}}, the website_name would hardly ever be needed.) Kanguole 21:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I agree doing it that way would be cleaner and friendlier. The only issue with that is that I feel users would not realise that the |website_name= parameter is not necessary in most cases and fill it in anyway which will stop the infoboxes being consistent. Therefore perhaps it could be removed from the blank syntax box in the doc and instead a note put somewhere on the doc saying if its necessary to change the name add |website_name=xxxxxxxxxxxx to the list of parameters (similar to how there is a note at {{Infobox film}} about adding a parameter to stop the article title being italicized)? Mhiji (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Though would probably be better in the Usage table rather than at the top of the article. Mhiji (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry the level of indenting is getting too much. I always populate the website_name parameter with the simplified website address, i.e. minus "http://", so for example the website would be http://www.example.com and website_name would be www.example.com. I would like to retain this functionality. - Scribble Monkey (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Using the template {{URL}} retains the functionality you want; in fact, it does it for you. Note also that the doc page states explicitly in the Microformat section, "If it has a URL, use {{URL}}.", so this is currently inconsistent. Specifying the use of the template {{URL}} and dumping the parameter |website_name= would resolve this. HairyWombat 03:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that bit in the Microformat section is incorrect, given the template's behaviour of generating the link itself. My suggestion is that the template generate the link using {{URL}} instead of with link syntax, documented as:

Parameter	Description	Example
website	The URL of the school's official website, without the initial http://.	www.hogwarts.org.uk
website_name	A label to use for the school's URL. This defaults to {{{website}}}, which is usually sufficient.	n/a

This is consistent with its handling of coordinates and Ofsted numbers. Mhiji suggests moving the website_name bit to a later section of the documentation to make less prominent.

The {{Infobox school}} way would be to leave constructing the URL to the user, documented as

Parameter	Description	Example
website	Link to the school website, constructed using {{URL}}.	{{URL|www.hogwarts.org.uk}}

Kanguole 09:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I support this approach. {{URL}} is a much neater solution and gives consistency with other infoboxes. --Simple Bob (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the penny has just dropped. The option of the user using website and optionally website name and the template then using {{URL}} seems preferable, as it is "cleaner and friendlier" and would only need changing in one place rather than everywhere where this template is used. - Scribble Monkey (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have any objections to deleting the |website_name= parameter completely? Thinking it through, I can't actually think of any time where it would be useful... Mhiji (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It's seldom needed now, but it still has occasional uses, as the 2nd parameter of {{URL}} does. For example the URL might be so long that it messes up the infobox. Kanguole 01:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It is used to explanation when the web-site is not directly that of the organisation with a note tagged on. Keith D (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't really understand that. What do you mean? Mhiji (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

According to Template:URL/doc, "it is strongly recommanded to use full and canonical URLs in the first parameter, (without depending on the tentative detection of a missing URI scheme or path)." Kanguole 23:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

What's you point? Mhiji (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I was responding to your deletion. The underlying template recommends using the full URL. Kanguole 09:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

But the phrase you quote is part of a sentence which begins, "If you specify a query string ... or an anchor ... in the first parameter, then ...". As User Mhiji was doing neither of these things, the phrase you quote does not apply and the deletion was sound. HairyWombat 17:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)