Template talk:Infobox school/Archive UK school 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Plain links?

Is there a reason why the Ofsted and URN links should be plain i.e. with no external link symbol after them? Surely if they are external links they should be displayed as such. --Simple Bob (talk) 10:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No reason that I can think of. This was added to {{Ofsted}} by MBisanz [1] and copied into {{EduBase}}. Kanguole 10:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've undone the plainlinks on those two templates. Kanguole 10:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice one, thanks. --Simple Bob (talk) 12:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Image size

{{edit semi protected}}

Already done I've closed the edit request, as Kanguole seems to have resolved the problem. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the transclusions of the template, there are a number of articles where a logo is used which is of relatively low resolution and it has been made much larger than it should be because of the infobox (see Fairfield Preparatory School, The Skegness Grammar School, Malvern St James). There is no need for them to be this big. I realise that currently the |size= parameter can be used to change this, but this would have to be changed manually on each article... Instead I was wondering if instead someone could change the code so that the picture defaults to not being made larger than it's original resolution? Mhiji (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Over the last year or so I have uploaded probably a hundred school crests/logos to UK school infoboxes and added quiute a lot of new infoboxes. I have been surprised recently that so many of them have suddenly been displaying on all my computers and browseres at extremely large sizes, far beyond their uploaded size and looking very ugly. As I come across them, I have manually been reducing the size - generally to about 150px which is roughly the size of the ones I have ripped of school or resized to fit. I'm never sure if these infoboxes have been transcluded, or are on the page. All the infoboxes I have added manually are not transcluded and should not be affected. was never sure if the UK school infobox was supposed to used transcluded or not.--Kudpung (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC) BTW, malvern St james is a good example becaus if I remember righytly ,n I wrote that article, or at least created it from the merger of the two schools that it was previously.

Those stretched logos have been bugging me too. I imagine it was done because some of these articles have large photographs in the image field. The ideal would be to only resize by default if it's bigger than 220px, but there doesn't seem to be a way to specify that, so I'd agree to removing the default size so that the large photos (rather than the small logos) should be using the size parameter. Kanguole 09:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand what went wrong, and the moment it went wrong figures too. I really think there should be far more discussion about changes to templates, however minor, that will have board wide consequenses. I've uploaded hundreds of school logos at around 100 - 150px over the years and they are now showing at huge blurred sizes. I belive the change was done in good faith, but without realisiing that the infobox image slot is intended for school crests or logos. We need to get this fixed fast , what we can do is either of the following:

• Set the default size to 150px

or

• Don't set a size (everyone does s 'previex' before saving, so they'll see if the size look s right).

and

• change the image label to 'logo/crest' so that no one tries to put a photo in it.

--Kudpung (talk) 10:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd favour removing the default size. Resizing small images to another small size often produces ugly results. But I don't see a need to change the field name: people can still put a photo there, but they'll have to set the size. Kanguole

I've only come across perhaps two school pages that had a photo in the top of the infobox, out of two hundred or so I've been expanding over the last year or so. When I found them I replaced them with the logos that I had sourced and uploaded. What I think might be a good idea, especially for school pages that are not going to have a lot of photos, would be to make a 250px box at the bottom of the infobox. There's no harm at all in having more parameters than are needed. Reviewing some of the discussions higher up, it looks as if there's been some attempts at fixing things that weren't really broke. I'm not so confident at messing with template code - do you want to go ahead and make the changes? --Kudpung (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the default size on the first image, which is usually the school logo, but left it on the second, which is often a photo. Kanguole 15:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary parameters?

There are a number of parameters in this infobox which seem unnecessary. They are hardly used, if ever, and just clutter up the infobox. I propose the deletion of the following parameters:

• |motto_pl=
• |founder_pl=
• |specialist_pl=
• |approx=
• |c_approx=
• |dms=

With regards to |motto_pl=, |founder_pl= and |specialist_pl=, most other infoboxes just add "(s)" onto the end of the label instead if necessary (e.g. the |founder= and |owner= parameters at Template:Infobox company). All three of these parameters are rarely used. I would propose that the first two are labelled Motto(s) and Founder(s) and the third unchanged (Specialism). Personally I think it's unnecessary to have Specialisms as "Specialism Arts and Computing" is fine as it is.

With regards to |approx= and |c_approx= I don't think they are really ever used and if ever the year is not known exactly "c." can just simply be entered in front of the date in the field. Also other parameters are not always exact, e.g. (|students= at The King's School, Canterbury). Where values are not known in any other parameters or in other infoboxes "c." is just added manually.

With regards to |dms=, it is hardly used, if ever, and seems unnecessary. Also, does it even work?! (Didn't seem to make any difference when I tried to use it.)

Any thoughts? Mhiji (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Plural and approx fields

I would prefer Specialism(s) for consistency and accuracy, but otherwise I would agree with the proposed changes. ~ Scribble Monkey (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I would keep |founder_pl= because I seem to recall that of plenty of schools that have multiple founders - how many did your search script come up with? Looking into the others.--Kudpung (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I've just looked through a number of transclusions of the template - not really done any proper research. I don't even know how to search to find how many use them! But if you could either tell me how or check for me that would be great. Mhiji (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If you look at my paragraph below it looks like your right that there are quite a few schools which have multiple founders. However none of the ones I looked at currently use the |founder_pl= parameter. Deleting it will actually be much more accurate as these articles will have the label as Founder(s) rather than Founder which is just wrong. Therefore would you still object to deleting it? Mhiji (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Until very recently, parameter |founder_pl= was broken. (I fixed it here.) That can explain why it was little used, and often used incorrectly (as editors struggled to try to make it work). HairyWombat 18:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

But the average user will not use them anyway. The Founder(s) approach is less complicated, consistent with other infoboxes and is less likely to cause errors. Keep things simple! Mhiji (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

That parameter (unlike dms) worked until this template was converted to use {{Infobox}} in September 2010. Kanguole 19:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur that specialism(s) should be kept. I do not think the logo size parameter should be removed - because of the slight differences in scanned sizes and definition, it is important that this can be adjusted locally on a 'per-article' basis. I only have a couple of hundred (if in fact that many) UK schools on my watchlist - it would be interesting to see just how many UK schools are using the UK Schools infobox and how many are using the wrong boxes or a generic USA style box. I am also slowly working through all the high schools, secondary schools, and FE schools that have the word College in their name and are incorrectly using the university infobox (due to the AE/BE misunderstandings). Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.--Kudpung (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There are 3733 transclusions of this infobox at the moment. If I find a UK one not using the template I convert it over. Keith D (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how parameters can be deleted without first a proper survey being conducted to see how widely they are used. User Mhiji states that they are "not sure" how many articles which use the template they have looked through. I must suggest something a lot more thorough than that is required. I don't know of an existing Wiki browser that will do this, but AWB looks like it might do the job. Alternatively, Perl scripts with the Perl module MediaWiki::Bot could be used. HairyWombat 04:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Parameters can be deleted without knowing how widely they are used if it doesn't change anything. Deleting |motto_pl=,|founder_pl=, |specialist_pl= and |dms= won't actually change anything (just the way the labels are displayed slightly). It would be necessary however to find out which articles (if any) use |approx= and |c_approx= before deleting them so that "c." can be added to the |established= and |closed= fields instead first. Mhiji (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

OK... I've done a bit of research. I looked through the transclusions of the template on the first page here (so just under 500 of them). There were only two which had anything in the |approx= field which were both used incorrectly anyway. Firstly, at Orpington College someone had typed the date in the |approx= parameter but nothing in the |established= field so it displayed like this). The second one was Ashdown Technology College where the year had been entered correctly in the |established= field and the date had also been typed in the |approx= field, resulting in it displaying incorrectly as "c. 1989" instead of just "1989" (see here). None of the other 5 fields had been used at all in the (almost) 500 articles that I looked at. There were however 17 where there was more than one founder, Royal Academy of Dance, Royal Hospital School, Coopers' Company and Coborn School, Dartford Grammar School, Chorister School, Durham, Colfe's School, The Downs School (Herefordshire), Rutlish School, Liverpool Blue Coat School, The Crypt School, Gloucester, Tiffin School, Bradfield College, Colchester Royal Grammar School, Plymouth College, Malvern St James, Bristol Grammar School and Westminster School. However in none of these had the |founder_pl= been used so the label displayed as Founder rather than Founders. Therefore all 19 of these articles would have been better off if the changes proposed were made. From this it looks like editors are either confused as to what the fields are for or just ignore them. Mhiji (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

500 is not enough to be a representative sample. There are nearly 4,000 pages using this template and almost every school in the UK is different. I don't understand what the rush is to change anything at all except the image formats which were also perfectly in order until someone inadvertently changed them - it took nearly three months to get that little sag sorted out, and hours of work manually entering the image sizes because I for one, don't like tinkering with things I don't understand. AFAIC, unused parameters are not doing any harm by being left where they are. Most school articles are created by WP:SPA, so much of the work filling in the infoboxes (if there are any) is left to the schools project regulars anyway. If we should be discussing anything, we should be talking about new, additional parameters that need to be included. Kudpung (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. This infobox has grown in an uncontrolled manner and needs to be sorted out - bringing it into line with the conventions used in most other infoboxes on Wikipedia - before we think about adding new parameters. As for unused parameters doing no harm, you are wrong. The more complex the infobox is, the more likely it is to be used incorrectly. --Simple Bob (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think that 500 is not enough to be a representative sample - its over an eighth of the articles. How much would be representative? Also none of them were using these parameters correctly. Two were using them incorrectly and 17 were not using them when they should have been. If you could find any articles which use them correctly I'd be amazed (please do prove me wrong). I personally think there's no need to do any more digging with regards to these fields since as I said in reply to Hairy Wombat above, deleting them won't actually change anything. As Simple Bob said I also think your wrong about unused parameters not doing harm. They clutter up the infobox and the average user will have no idea what the |approx= or |specialist_pl= fields are for?! Do you have any objections to deleting any of the 6 parameters listed and if so what are they? I don't really understand why there being a number of articles where there are more than one founder is any reason to keep |founder_pl=? The method proposed above just provides a better solution to the one which is there at the moment. And if none of the articles are using it it's pointless keeping it. Even if just a handful of articles are using the parameters correctly it's likely that the same amount or more are using them incorrectly. Mhiji (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm mildly in favour of the plural fields, having used them myself. I agree that "Motto(es)" would be ugly, and having an additional specialism is an important deal for a school. Though maybe the founder field could be fudged by labelling it "Founded by".

The approx fields might have been reasonable if the template were doing some processing of |established= and |closed=, but it isn't. Kanguole 00:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

...I always wanted us to, but it's a chicken-and-egg thing. Categorisation, for example, would be excellent. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 17:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Dates

On the topic of the parameters |established= and |closed=, these should be using the templates {{Start date}} and {{End date}}. This is more Microformat stuff. These templates need proper dates—at least a year—so "11th century", etc, would not be suitable. Maybe specify the use of the templates on the doc page, and then let editors use their discretion. HairyWombat 18:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the documentation for those templates, they're not supposed to be used for years before 1583, which will be an issue for some British schools. Kanguole 11:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a shed loadf of UK schools founed before 1583 90BTW, why is that the cut-off date?). My school was founded in 1326.--Kudpung (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The Gregorian calendar was first introduced in 1582. Hence, dates prior to this must be non-Gregorian. The way other Infoboxes handle this is by specifying the use of the templates {{Start date}} and {{End date}} in the docs, but then leaving it to the editor adding the date to use the template or not as appropriate. HairyWombat 18:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

dms

dms hasn't worked for a while. Kanguole 00:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, instead of the parameters |dms=, |latitude= and |longitude=, other Infobox templates use a parameter |coor=. This uses the template {{Coord}}, as described in the Microformat section on the doc page. On looking in the actual template (and not just at the doc page), I see that the template {{Coord}} is used. The parameter |dms= does not work because this template ignores it; it needs to be passed through to the template {{Coord}} using, for example, {{{Coord|39.098095|-94.587307|format=dms}}. HairyWombat 04:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Right. It would be easy to fix, but I'm not sure it makes sense to make this sort of stylistic choice on a per-school basis, so maybe we should just delete it from the docs. Kanguole 23:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer to know first how often it is used. If it is popular then that would suggest editors want this sort of stylistic choice. HairyWombat 02:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't Template:Coord#Per-user display customization be the appropriate way to make that choice? (Apparently it was removed in August 2008[2].) Kanguole 11:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that somebody gave up trying to make the parameter |dms= work is just a strong argument for creating this template's sandbox and testcases. For me, the parameter |dms= does no harm, and it's only problem is that is does not currently work. HairyWombat 18:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I should also point out that other Infobox templates tend not to have this sort of problem because they specify the use of the template {{Coord}} in the docs (with a parameter |coor=), but leave it up to the editor to use it. That is to say, the template {{Coord}} is not built in to the Infobox template. The editor then gets to choose whether coordinates should be dms or decimal. This strikes me as a better approach. HairyWombat 18:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree: as a user of this infobox, I find that having to supply only the latitude and longitude and having the template do the rest is one of its nicest features. It wouldn't be hard to make dms work; whether we want to is a separate question. Kanguole 19:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree with Kanguole. I'd prefer just entering the latitude and longitude. This is much cleaner and user-friendly. I don't see any need for the |dms= parameter. Surely it's best to keep all of the infoboxes consistent (as they are at the moment) by not using it and just using the default format? Again, this parameter just over complicates things - just keep things simple. Does anyone here actually want that functionality? Mhiji (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I liked the DMS function when it worked but to be honest I have no strong feeling these days so get rid of it with my blessing if you feel strongly about it. What I do like is being able to enter long/lat into the template without having to construct the {{coord}} template myself. --Simple Bob (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The difference is between entering "|latitude = 39.098095" and "|longitude = -94.587307", or entering "|coor = {{Coord|39.098095|-94.587307}}". I honestly see this as a very minor difference. The latter would bring this template into line with other Infobox templates. As for whether the functionality of the paramneter |dms= is wanted, as I said above, "If it is popular then that would suggest editors want this sort of stylistic choice". What is needed is a comprehensive survey to determine how often it is used. To me, discussing without this information whether a parameter should be deleted is crazy. HairyWombat 06:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact the template does "{{Coord|39.098095|-94.587307|region:GB_type:edu_dim:100|display=title}}". Users need only enter the data particular to a school, and the template produces a consistent result. We could put that whole thing in the documentation for them to copy, but then if we ever changed the recommended use we'd have a lot of places to update. Kanguole 08:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. Well I've deleted the parameter from the doc for now purely because it doesn't work (and doesn't seem to be in the code at all). If we do decide its necessary and anyone has the desire to get it working again then it can always be readded then. Mhiji (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have got it working, so have restored it to the doc page. HairyWombat 04:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Some stats: of the 2714 pages that specify coordinates in this infobox, 1219 also specify |dms=. Kanguole 07:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

size

Also I was just thinking is the |size= parameter redundant now as well following Kanguole's changes above? Would anyone oppose to deleting that too? Mhiji (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This optional parameter can usually be left blank, but there will be occasions when it is needed. Kanguole 10:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks. Yeah I agree the |size= parameter should be kept for now. Mhiji (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Street and postcode

I have no strong feelings about any of the above parameters so would not object to their deletion — but I do object to the clumsy "Motto(s)" plural representation proposed. Leave it as singular please. What I would like to see removed is the |street= and |postcode=. I fail to see what relevance these have in an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia isn't a travel guide, nor is it a directory. If people really want to know a school's full address then they can click through to the school's website, the Ofsted link, or even the mapping link. These two parameters just add clutter to the infobox. --Simple Bob (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to add that many similar building/institution infoboxes do not use such intricate location parameters. Most just use |location= e.g. {{Infobox hospital}}, {{Infobox museum}}, {{Infobox religious building}}, {{Infobox prison}}. --Simple Bob (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Post codes are used in UK articles and templates and are very useful for use in satnav systems when you need to get to places, equivalent to ZIP codes in US. The template probably has less fields than {{Infobox school}} so should not be cutting out the useful ones. Keith D (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Where are full 7-digit postcodes used in UK articles? Coordinates are used to provide mapping links, and partial postcodes are used in all UK town/city articles to show postal areas, but I can't think of any other UK article class that uses full postcodes. Full street addresses simply aren't needed in an encyclopaedia. --Simple Bob (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody just take a moment to check the 39 other school templates around the English speaking world and count how many don't have Zip or Post Codes? Thanks.Kudpung (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of school addresses was proposed and rejected at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 28#School street addresses. That would be the place to revisit the issue. Kanguole 14:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Deputies

If you're looking for stuff to delete, I'd start with the deputy fields. Kanguole 11:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You have my vote for that one. --Simple Bob (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Statistics

I've downloaded the raw source of the 3681 articles using this template. Here is the number using each field:

• |name= 3673
• |image= 1381
• |size= 1261
• |caption= 35
• |image2= 6
• |size2= 5
• |caption2= 1
• |latitude= 2714
• |longitude= 2718
• |dms= 1293
• |motto= 1574
• |motto_pl= 54, of which 38 are wrong, usually by using it for the second motto.
• |established= 2325
• |approx= 54, of which 32 are wrong, usually by putting the date in it.
• |closed= 137
• |c_approx= 2, both wrong (Lambrook and St Cyprian's School).
• |type= 2882
• |religion= 1134
• |president= 44 (some of these aren't in the UK, and some aren't schools)
• |head_label= 2289
• |head= 3074
• |head_elect_label= 2
• |head_elect= 2 (Read School, Drax and Reepham High School and College)
• |r_head_label= 254
• |r_head= 256
• |deputy_head_label= 85
• |deputy_head= 9
• |r_deputy_head_label= 18
• |r_deputy_head= 24
• |chair_label= 623
• |chair= 725
• |founder= 597
• |founder_pl= 55, of which 12 are wrong.
• |specialist= 1816
• |specialist_pl= 178, of which 20 are wrong.
• |street= 3255
• |city= 3613
• |county= 3368
• |country= 3616
• |postcode= 3196
• |LEA= 2674
• |dcsfno= 245
• |dfeno= 1
• |dcsfurn= 366
• |urn= 583
• |ofsted= 2017
• |staff= 624
• |enrollment= 2688
• |gender= 3102
• |lower_age= 3324
• |upper_age= 3224
• |houses= 979
• |colours= 1196
• |publication= 296
• |publication_pl= 1 (correctly, by Thomas Becket Catholic School)
• |free_label_1= 566
• |free_1= 558
• |free_label_2= 203
• |free_2= 198
• |free_label_3= 91
• |free_3= 89
• |website= 3326
• |website_name= 2082

Kanguole 07:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent stats, thanks for this. Speaks mostly for itself. Kudpung (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

head_elect

The parameters |head_elect= and |head_elect_label= were added in September 2010 for use for Read School, Drax. I don't believe that a person who is not yet an officer of the school should be named in the infobox, so I propose to remove these parameters. (Now that the new head of Read School is in post, no articles are using them.) Kanguole 23:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for these parameters. Just as there is no need for deputy head. These contents are subject to frequent change, school articles are mainly created by SPA, and nobody bothers to return to update them. What we do need however are parameters for the ISC Reference Number and the DfE Reference Number. --Kudpung (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

We have |dfeno=. I agree that the ISC Reference Number would be useful, as we can link it to http://www.isc.co.uk/school_NNNNN.htm.

It's more than useful, it's as important as the Ofsted number. The ISC is the Ofsted accredited inspectorate for independent schools, and the DfE number is a govt number for the independent schools that don't have a URN (Ofsted). --Kudpung (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we please let Jarry know about this before he does his bot run. Apparently can take months to get the bot approved. --Kudpung (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this affects the bot he's got approval for and is about to run. Kanguole 09:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have now removed |head_elect= and |head_elect_label=. Kanguole 00:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/UK schools using wrong infoboxes

There is now a special sub page for addressing the UK school infoboxes. Please help out if you can, and if you are not already a member, please consider joining the WP:SCHOOLS project - we need all the help we can get! --Kudpung (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Geographical Coords

I will concede that the coords parameter is totally redundant in a school infobox. It's not necessary, it's not of interest for the reader, and it's often redundant. However, I will reiterate that there is generally no need to continue to deliberately look for, and fix things that are not broken. The last time that was done, as we all know, it broke something for thousands of UK school pages. The problem is that a great many school pages are created by WP:SPA and/or extremely inexperienced users and have low hits, thus issues often don't get reported for months, and when they are, it's often hard to identify the cause, so people like me who don't know much about porogrammation of template features and parameters carry out a local remedy on the page, that may even unwittingly exacerbate the problem. There is, IMHO, more serious work to be done. At the end of the day, perhaps the people who designed the guidelines for the MOS of school pages should be allowed to have their say, and a consensus can be reached.--Kudpung (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Explain further. Are you saying that coordinates are not needed for school articles? On what basis? Geotagging is a fundamental feature of Wikipedia and you'll find coordinates added, either via the {{coord}} template or via lat/long in the infobox, on tens or even hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles. Using coordinates isn't difficult at all. --Simple Bob (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Much easier to have the coords in the infobox as it keeps information together rather than having a separate {{coord}} template.. It would be better to display the coords and add the OS reference in the infobox rather than remove it. Keith D (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really mind either way as long as editors can agree to standardize on either the top right hand corner of the page as for other articles, or the infobox, but certainly not both. Only a tiny majority of school infoboxes are populated wuth the coords. I certainly have never added any to the hundreds of school infoboxes I have created and updated. Point is, if consensus is reached to keep them, who is going to put them in the 50,000 school infoiboxes? Can it be done with AWB? Can Simple Bob do it?Kudpung (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with having the coords in both places? Again, that is fairly common practice on Wikipedia. --Simple Bob (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

But this infobox does have a standard way of doing it: if you fill in |latitude= and |longitude= the coordinates go in the title bar only. Kanguole 09:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine, so when, are you guys going to start? ;)--Kudpung (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You can start now if you wish. I've been doing it for years. Kanguole 11:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox and testcases

Please note that this template now has a sandbox and testcases (recently created by user Mhiji). Hopefully, these will discourage people from making untested changes to the live template. HairyWombat 05:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

BRFA filed

...for the Ofsted/URN rearrangement => Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/LivingBot_14. Anything anyone wants to add in the incidental edits section in particular? - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 17:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Alternative / other language names

I think it would be useful if this template had some way of giving alternative / other language names for a school. Most of the schools around here have Gaelic names, so I think it would be good to include it in the infobox. There are also some schools where the main name is in Gaelic, so the English language name should be a separate field. I know you could use "free_label_1" etc, but that puts it right at the bottom of the infobox - I think it would be better at the top, just under the main name. Maybe similar style to how it is on Infobox UK place. --Vclaw (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of the schools around where? Please let us know, show us the percentage of school there vs other schools in the UK, and cite your sources, and we'll look into the idea. In the meantime, you may like to join in the clean up drive for schools. Details of what you can do to help are on are on the WP:WPSCH main page. --Kudpung (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of the schools in Highland (council area), and Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, and much of Argyll and Bute. Why does it matter what percentage it is? This would be an optional, additional field in the template - if it doesn't apply to a particular school, then don't use it. There are already quite a few fields in the template which are irrelevant for most schools. --Vclaw (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Is that all in Scotland or somewhere by any chance? or is it Northern Ireland - there is already an infobox for Irish schools. Please read the entire discussion on this page to get an idea of the consensus regarding the fields that should or should not be on the template. At the moment we are trying to reduce the number of fields. You will need to provide a list of existing school articles for us to judge if their number justifies the addition. I would generally oppose your request, but we'll see when User:Kanguole and the others have chimed in. Kudpung (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Think they are for Scottish schools, probably have a similar situation for Welsh schools. Cannot see a problem with adding a field for the language name. Keith D (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the official position in Scotland? For Wales and Northern Ireland, my impression is that each school has a single name, which may be English, Welsh or Irish.

In general, I'd hope for a design a bit lighter than {{Infobox UK place}} (9 parameters), say with one or two additional parameters. Kanguole 11:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Two parameters,|native_name= & |native_name_lang=, added. Examples in Caldicot Comprehensive School (which needs some love in other regards). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Template layout

Is there any chance the look of this template could be updated to match Template:Infobox school (i.e the colour bars, and the location of the address/location information) to provide more consistency across WikiProject Schools? TheAuthor22 (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you can get consensus for it, yes. However, as these different regional infoboxes have region-specific function code embedded in them that you cannot see, and that has been prepared following much discussion and consensus, please do not use any others, until a decision has been made to change the skin. Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I certainly would avoid the location type layout of the general schools infobox in favour of the one in the UK specific one of a per line one. Unsure about the colouring of the template as well. Keith D (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Norflondon, 30 January 2011

 Not done {{edit semi-protected}} The head teacher is no longer Richard Ewen, it is Diana Osagie who was previously deputy head since 2001. The school achieved 95% A*-G grade GCSEs in 2010. See school website for corroboration The sentence about the 2009 results is incorrect and should be removed The sentence about Farhad Mohammed is unsubstantiated and should be removed. if he was a famous scientist wouldn't he have a wikipedia page? I suspect a pupil here.

Norflondon (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the template. You need to edit Islington Arts and Media School --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 11:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

phone numbers

maybe there could be a field for phone/fax numbers, or other contact details? RCSprinter123 (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to say probably not. Currently phone numbers are specifically mentioned as being excluded from info-boxes in this guideline: WP:WPSCH/INFOBOX. The point of this that phone numbers are considered to not be encyclopaedic content (see WP:NOTDIRECTORY), and as such they should not be included on pages. _TheAuthor²² _[Talk] 17:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, OK. It was just a suggestion.RCSprinter123 (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ofsted Field

There appears to be a problem with the way the link to a school's reports are created; most schools' reports will have the URL "http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/oxedu_providers/full/(urn)/{URN}" but some schools (such as St Edmund's School) have the URL "http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/oxcare_providers/full/(urn)/{URN}", and the link doesn't work. Is there any way of fixing this? ModWilson (talk|contribs) 19:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we could have a |osted = partial option or somesuch to cover these cases? - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 20:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That page concerns Ofsted inspection of the school's boarding provision, but this template only does links for Ofsted inspection of education. Kanguole 22:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

So we need a separate parameter in the infobox, or suitable logic, to ensure that the inspection reports of boarding provision can be listed in the infobox. Information related to boarding is just as important as information related to teaching for those schools that do it. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 22:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably need to change {{Ofsted}} to allow for both URLs, and pass in a switch flag from this template. Keith D (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This template uses |urn= to find both its EduBase page and (if appropriate) its Ofsted education page. The number for boarding provision (SC023678) isn't the URN, which for this school is 118998, so it would need to be a different parameter. It would be cleaner to use a different template than {{Ofsted}}, too. Kanguole 00:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

How about having something like |ofsted = urn if the Ofsted number is equal to the URN, and if the Ofsted number is different, e.g. SC023678, having |ofsted = SC023678? ModWilson (talk|contribs) 19:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of schools for which Ofsted inspects both education and boarding, e.g. Adams' Grammar School (123593 and SC020589). Kanguole 19:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

So, would it be possible to add a parameter for the Ofsted social care number of a school? Coyets (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from UserBoxen, 12 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I Want Access to the Template to Add Some More Free labels. I Think There Should Be 5 Free Labels Like the Us Schools. I Also Want to Add A Section for A Moodle A Homework Site Type That Is Becoming Popular.

UserBoxen (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —GƒoleyFour— 14:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from UserBoxen, 12 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I Propose That The UK School Infrobox Should Have the Same Amount of freelabels as the US infobox so that the UK schools can add more details. I also propose that there is a tag under website for a Moodle. A site that most schools use now. I also think there should be a size for picture 2 so that theat can be formatted like picture 1. UserBoxen (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I increased the number of free labels. What's a Moodle and what sort of tag did you think should be there? Banaticus (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Moodle is popular virtual learning environment. I think that verges on NOTDIR territory. There is a size2 parameter, but it wasn't documented. Kanguole 16:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we should be careful of making claims such as 'most schools use it', and I do not think that the current UK schools infobox needs further development in that direction. Moodle is indeed pompular however. Basically similar to a content management web site builder, I have it experimentally on my server, but of the hundreds of schools and universities I work with worldwide, I don't personally know any that use it. I've noticed that just a few of the schools that have Wikipedia pages use it. Kudpung (talk) 07:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The only website that needs to be listed in the infobox is the school's official one. I don't see any reason for listing the URL to a school's VLE anywhere in the article (except perhaps as a reference) as the people that use the VLE will already know the URL and those who don't use it won't have access. Also, having five free labels encourages the infobox to be filled up with unnecessary rubbish. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 08:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Param problem: Logo

Please see Chapel-en-le-Frith High School.

• Why is this happening?
• Would it not be a good idea to rename one of the image params 'Logo', and so that just the file name, eg.: logo_of_this_school.jpg without the square brackets and 'File:' can be dropped in? We must remember that most school articles are now being created by young pupils and that perhaps we should make it as easy as possiblre for them.
• BTW: Also, I suggest that requests for extra fields should reach a short consesus - User:Userboxen is a blocked sockmaster.

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ofsted number & academies

Academy converters get new URNs but their Ofsted inspections don't get moved across and stay under the old URN. Can we modify the logic of the ofsted parameter such that if the parameter has a number that is different to the current URN that the alternative number is used for the Ofsted link. Perhaps the best way to do this is to have an old_URN parameter which would give preference to the older URN in the Ofsted listing. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Is Ofsted keeping the previous inspections page under the old URN? It seems to be gone in the cases I checked. Kanguole 13:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You are not wrong. I just did some checking and what they do is simply turn off the reports listed under the old URN - presumably being "lost forever". So no need for this change. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 14:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Plus, they don't create an entry for the school under its new URN until the next inspection takes place. Given that "outstanding" Ofsted academy converters might not have an inspection for several years that means the school and the subsequent academy simply won't exist on Ofsted's website during the period between conversion and the next inspection. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 14:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Edubase Changing URL

I got the follwing e-mail this morning from EduBase they are changing the URL. Not sure if you need to make some tweaks so that links to the EduBase URL do not break.

--JetBlast (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this can be handled with an edit to {{EduBase}} next week. Kanguole 08:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Bump. This has not been done yet, has it? The change needs to be made soon, I'd say. Fmph (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Done now. Kanguole 06:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ofsted reports for academies (revisted)

Ofsted finally got their fingers out and reinstated the Ofsted reports for academy converters. So that gives us two possible infobox situations for academies.

• Ofsted reports exist under old URN, but none under new URN because no inspection has been done at the academy e.g. The Kings of Wessex Academy - academy URN 136783 = no reports; school URN 123896 = old reports
• Ofsted reports exist under old URN and new URN e.g. Holyrood Academy - academy URN 136295 = new reports; school URN 12870 = old reports

The URL format for the old and new reports is identical - only the URN changes. That means we could easily add an infobox parameter "old_ofsted = ", or "old_URN = "; then we can either display this on a separate line in the infobox, or we could get clever and put some nice conditional logic so that both the above conditions could be displayed within the same row of the infobox. For the sake of simplicity I prefer the former. What do others think? --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 12:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems we need both |old_urn= and |old_ofsted= to cover cases like The Kings of Wessex Academy: it would need values for both |old_urn= and |urn=, and have |old_ofsted= set, but not |ofsted=. There would also be EduBase entries for old URN's, but it mightn't be worthwhile to display them. Kanguole 13:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think we need two parameters, because if |old_URN= is set then there should always be Ofsted reports - I can't think of a scenario where there wouldn't be. As for the old EduBase entry, I agree that wouldn't be necessary. --Simple Bob ^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 15:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This is now fixed. I have implemented "old_urn" which works independently of whether either "urn" or "ofsted" are set to display the Ofsted reports for pre-conversion. I have also updated the documentation. --Bob Re-born (talk) 10:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Just spotted this and used it in Ash Green School. It's good, but there's an ugly line-break in "Reports Pre-academy/ Reports". Could a break be added so that it's "Reports / Pre-academy reports"? The width of the infobox is fixed so presumably this happens all the time? PamD 13:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Position of school name

I propose that the name of the school be moved from its current position to actually be inside the top of the infobox, as it currently is with Template:Infobox university. I think this would look more visually attractive, and would also provide greater continuity between UK school and university articles. Raywil (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Either way is permissible according to {{Infobox}}, but I prefere it outside the box because it looks much cleaner there. --Bob Re-born (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Anything regarding the aesthetics should probably best be offered for discussion by the broader community, especially the folks at the Wikipedia Schools project. I suggest perhaps talking about it at WT:WPSCH, and then coming back here to discuss any technical changes if and when a consensus has been reached. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If you do take somewhere else to discuss please add link here so that people can follow it rather than have some consensus formed elsewhere that affects this infobox. Keith D (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

At the end of the day Keith, I don't think it matters where the discussion takes place as long as everyone knows about it. That said, whatever my personal views are on the aesthestics of the box, I think we have other priorities - some of the examples used on the various school infobox still cause confusion to new users (even to me), and the hidden software actions are not consistent throughout. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The current ('outside') display uses the HTML table's caption attribute, which has accessibility benefits not offered by the alternative arrangement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Coordinates in the infobox

Unresolved

I support the recent addition of coordinates in the infobox, as is common practice in a large number of Wikipedia templates. Let's see what others think and see if we can reach consensus on whether they should be there. --Bob Re-born (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

We already display the coordinates in the title bar just above the infobox. In my view displaying them again inside the infobox is unnecessary clutter. Kanguole 10:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with Kanguole, it is just extra clutter, especially distracting with the globe symbol next to it, and the display at the top is just fine for the purpose of co-ordinate display. Keith D (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The documentation for {{coord}} explains how you may hide (or alter) the display of the coordinates, or hide the blue globe, or both. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Unaware of the above discussion, I recently amended this template, to display the coordinates in the infobox as well as at the top of the article (In other words to use |display=inline,title in {{Coord}}. I have been reverted, with an edit summary of "coordinates in the title is sufficient, and less clutter".

Putting coordinates in the infobox ensures that they are omitted as part of the infoboxes metadata (using an hCard microformat). It's also what's done in most comparable infoboxes, such as {{Infobox building}} and {{Infobox church}}. Furthermore, coordinates are not "clutter", but encyclopedic content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly coordinates are encyclopedic content; it is displaying them twice that is clutter. But I'm sure you've heard that before. Is there no way to get the coordinates into the metadata without this display? Kanguole 21:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

No; and note that (almost) everything in the infobox is already in the article (or should be). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

In my experience quite a bit of the data placed in this infobox isn't usually also in the article text, not that that's very relevant here. It would be unfortunate to have to change the appearance of articles just to solve a coding problem. Is there an expansion on your above "No" anywhere? Kanguole 21:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"No, there is not a way to get the coordinates into the metadata without this display". Why, do you suppose, is the point to which you refer not relevant? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was hoping for a pointer to the discussion that led to that conclusion, e.g. consideration of style="display:none;". Regarding relevance, the coordinates we're talking about are in another decoration (the title bar) rather than article text. Kanguole 00:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not a matter of opinion resulting from discussion, it's matter of fact. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If we put {{coord}} inside the infobox, but with just |display=title, will that not get the coordinates into the metadata? Kanguole 18:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No. That is already covered by my answer to your question "Is there no way to get the coordinates into the metadata without this display?". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't Barking station have coordinates in its metadata? Kanguole 21:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

How can one see that? Kanguole 23:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Learn how microformats work, and read the source code; or use tools like those listed at Wikipedia:Microformats; though you could just take my word for it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. I tried Firefox's Operator extension, which shows a GEO field in the vCard for that page. Kanguole 10:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Depending on the user settings, it may do. However, other tools will not, and hidden values are deprecated in microformats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult to tell what is supposed to happen. The link you pointed at contains specs of the classes and properties of hcard and other formats, but doesn't seem to include any specification of what HTML makes a legal microformat. How, for example, does the output of that article violate the specification? Regarding hiding, {tl|coord}} itself places the "geo" property inside a non-displayed element. Kanguole 15:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with Kanguole. Seeing coordinates twice in the same area of the article is superfluous. This same point has been made since 2007 or so: see eg Tinsley viaduct (3 editors expressing dislike of similar repetition). Oculi (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention here and here, on this very talk page. Oculi (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

As you know; consensus can change; and the points I made in those discussions remain valid. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Also agree with Kanguole on this one that they are unnecessary to co-ords in top right of article. Also see my comments on recent discussion at Infobox UK place. Keith D (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

And yet other, more widely used infoboxes ({{Infobox school}}, {{Infobox building}}, {{Geobox}}, many more), allow coordinate display. Why are these two UK-specific boxes a special case? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Another consideration is that coordinates in infoboxes are displayed on our increasingly-important mobile site and apps; whereas "title" coordinates are not. This is particularly relevant, as the new version of the app allows users to select coordinates, and thus easily find other articles, "nearby" to them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It appears that this issue is unresolved; we should bring this template into line woth other infoboxes, which allow coordinates display both inside the infobox and at the top of the page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Capacity

I think we should make a provision to show the schools Capacity and the schools Enrolment as these can differ quite a bit, and would make it clearer on the articles. Mark999 (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Specialism

Removed specialism as the scheme ended in 2010! So is no longer applicable. Mark999 (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I have updated the documentation. Keith D (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Phone Number

Why do we not use a phone number here? Could we create a field for a phone number to be entered, and maybe even a fax number? Jwikiediting (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Website / URL

I am getting unexpected behaviour when using website = {{URL|example.com}}. Is anyone else seeing similar? Thanks, Tgeairn (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Upon review of the code, I see that the template is wrapping website inside {{URL:...}}. Which works, but it differs from other {{infobox school}} implementations.

I am looking into possible alternatives to this. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

use |website_name= to override the display. Frietjes (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not so much that the display ends up incorrect (it does), but that the resulting link is broken. If I set |website={{URL|www.example.com}} then I get a broken link. This is inconsistent with other {{infobox school}} implementations, which may be fine but can be confusing. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

good point, it should now be fixed. I would support migrating all of them to use the same format as {{infobox school}}. Frietjes (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Nice, thanks for hitting that so quickly. I especially like the either/or implementation you created. The other templates could use this, as it gives consistent microformat results regardless of the input. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure this an improvement. It makes the template code more complicated, in order to allow users to write more complicated input, without any additional functionality. Kanguole 20:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Ofsted links

The DfE URN provides links to the Ofsted inspection report page. But Ofsted have a new Data Dashboard designed specifically for parents. I feel it would be useful to add a link to it. The link would be http://dashboard.ofsted.gov.uk/dash.php?urn=012345 where 012345 is the URN value. I notice from the template code that the functionality is passed to {{Ofsted}} for transclusion here. Would such changes be better discussed there or here? Atlas-maker (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I think probably this is best venue to discuss it first but I'll drop a note at WT:WPSCH. It seems a good idea, but updating all the school articles would be a nighmare. Probably all UK schools of note already have an article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I dont think it would be a nightmare. You just change the template once and the articles naturally pick up the changes as time goes on. Atlas-maker (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, Atlas, I can only speak from my own experience of being a Brit and the coord of the Wiki Schools project for many years. I have most of the 3,117 maintained secondary schools in England on my watchlist and have improved and updated 100s of them, and what I find is that a great many school articles are created by SPA who never go back to them. Apart from that, those who do edit them just drive by to add some promotional stuff, sports results, academic prowess, or plain junk. They rarely take an interest in the more traditional details. ETA 10 years? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

- unless someone can devise a way of doing it with AWB, but they would still have to look up the new Ofsted links.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

We already have a |urn= field, which is filled in by many uses of this template, so it would indeed be just a matter changing the template code. However the current link takes us to the Ofsted inspections page, which contains a link to link to the data dashboard page, whereas there doesn't seem to be a link in the opposite direction. Since one links to the other, and inspection is Ofsted's purpose, it seems that the link to the inspections page is appropriate, and sufficient. Kanguole 13:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and made the change just to show what it could look like and to show that it doesnt need every article to be edited. Just changing the template means every school article would show the new link. I'm happy for that change to be reverted if consensus is against the change. Atlas-maker (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The {{ofsted}} template is the wrong place to make the change, because this infobox isn't the only place that template used. It is used, for example, in references. Also, as I've mentioned above I don't think it improves the infobox, as the reports page includes a link to its data dashboard, so duplicating that link here is a waste of space and adds needless complexity. Kanguole 00:25, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Kanguole, I dont think its needed, and it clutters up the box. - Bleaney (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You may be correct about the clutter. Removing the word 'Data' and the line break gives a much more balanced output which complements the ' DfE URN' line above it, by matching the 'URN' and 'Tables' links withe the 'Reports' and 'Dashboard' links. Thats much more aesthetically pleasing now. WRT other uses of the template outside the infobox, that is very easily solved. I could create a new {{ofsted-infobox}} template with our new additions and revert the changes to the original template. Then replace the usage of {{ofsted}} within {{Infobox UK school}} with the infobox specific template. That's probably 15 minutes work. Is that worth doing now?Atlas-maker (talk) 06:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Well thats done now. If it's going to stay, we should really tidy up the documentation, and add some see also's. Atlas-maker (talk) 07:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The point about clutter is that this link adds little, because it is also found on the reports page, which we provide a link to. This is unlike the two links on the URN line, which go to different sites. Kanguole 08:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a specialist in templates, as Kanguole knows, but in hindsight, now that I understand more about what is involved I tend to concur with Kanguole and Bleaney. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I moved {{ofsted-infobox}} to {{Infobox UK school/ofsted}} since it is only being used in this template. Frietjes (talk) 14:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Deleted fields

I have restored |county=. Although the ceremonial county plays no role in administering schools, it is useful in describing a school's location.

In addition, I've made the new |local_authority= default to the value of |LEA= where it is set (which it is in many articles). Kanguole 01:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sex, not gender

The operative word for British (certainly English) schools is "sex" (as a noun), not "gender": it is either "single-sexed" or "mixed-sexed". In England, and as far as schools are concerned, "gender" is really a post-1980s "politically-correct" (PC) word. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Spelling error

Could somebody with access please correct the erroneous "enrollment" to "enrolment"? SCHolar44 (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The template accepts both spellings as an argument. Keith D (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The single "L" word is not correct on the Eastern side of the Pond. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Ofsted Links Failing

It seems the DofE URN and the Ofsted URN's no longer match:

* http://reports.ofsted.gov.uk/inspection-reports/find-inspection-report/provider/ELS/136677
* http://www.education.gov.uk/edubase/establishment/summary.xhtml?urn=110860

Do we need another field in the template? AlexWasFirst (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Ahh never mind, closer reading has shown the problem is pre/post Academy... AlexWasFirst (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Changes

Please remove the Staff from the infobox as EduBase no longer shows number of staff. Mark999 (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add "Admissions" For instance "Comprehensive" as I don't really think it fits well under "Type". Mark999 (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)