Template talk:Infobox Education in Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Examples

Some examples of the completed template

Correction -- this is not a good example since it doesn't actually use the infobox template. My recent attempts to change this article to the official infobox were continuously reverted by an individual who doesn't like the look of the infobox. My suggestion instead is to look through one of the many Canadian school articles listed in "What links here". --Stephane Charette 22:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] URL

Where in the template info box do you think the URL link for the schools website should go ??

I think we should follow Template:Infobox School or Template:Infobox School2.  Image:Ca-on-sb.gif  UTSRelativity (Talk)  06:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Why do we have three templates for one subject ?? Battlefield 12:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
There is another WikiProject working on the other templates. Personally, I don't see why we should duplicate the effort. We can have our infobox for our other information.  Image:Ca-on-sb.gif  UTSRelativity (Talk)  17:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Template

This template was re-written tonight. The previous version was not a template that could be used directly from articles since some fields were not even "fields" but simply static text (city, province, contact information) that had to be WP:SUBST and then edited within the article. This new version is really a template, with most fields optional, yet should have exactly the same "look-and-feel" as the previous version. For further discussion on the use of this and related school/education templates, please see the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in Canada. --Stephane Charette 12:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

To prepare swapping out older templates and hard-coded infoboxes in several Canadian school articles, I've added the following optional fields to the template:
  1. colours
  2. motto
  3. affiliation
  4. mascot Stephane Charette 08:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] URL to the school's profile at the school board, or directly to the school?

In regards to the URL provided in the infobox, I propose that the official school profile from the school board's web page be provided, instead of a URL directly to the school web server. This is for the following reasons:

  1. not all schools have a personal web site, especially when it comes to primary schools
  2. some schools have student-run sites which are not "official", even though the URL may make it look official

Especially due to #2, I think only the official sites should be linked from the infobox. Of course, "external links" at the bottom of the article can always be used to link to any other school- or student-run web site.

To pick a recent example, A. Y. Jackson Secondary School (Toronto):

--Stephane Charette 03:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] School number

The school number field can be found with:

(Please add the other provinces/territories to this list as official sources are found.) --Stephane Charette 19:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A few notes

I just noticed that if you include a motto, but don't have an image, then the motto is not displayed to the user when the template is rendered. A quick perusal of the code seems to indicate that motto and image are considered one structure. (See King City Secondary School for an example.)

Also, the text fields are formatted with no padding between cell borders and the text, which makes it difficult to read entries (headers and text for principal, school type, colours etc).

Finally, we shouldn't automatically include the category. Schools should be placed in the most specific category appropriate (eg - High schools in Ontario), instead of a generic catch-all like Schools in Canada.Mindmatrix 18:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

My reply:
  • When I added the motto, there were just a few existing Canadian school articles where the motto was listed, and I also happened to have a logo or a picture handy for each one. The presentation of the motto below the logo/picture went together well, so that is why I chose to have the motto dependant on the image. I have another suggestion: if the motto is specified but no logo or school image exists, then we could relatively easily have it included in the bottom half of the infobox.
I modified the template so that the motto appears between the Area and the Mascot if there is no image. — Usgnus 04:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • In regards to the padding, I've also wondered how to fix that up. I'm new to both templates and wikipedia boxes, so if anyone knows how to fix this nicely without messing up any of the existing Canadian school articles, please do so! (I suggest a temporary userspace infobox to test things out and ensure that everyone likes the result before making the changes official.)
  • In regards to the category, I could go either way on this one. Since having made this change to the template, I've since found guidelines asking that an article not be included in both a child and immediate parent category, so that would seem to be a vote towards removing the inclusion into Schools in Canada. However, I also thought it would be nice to eventually have a single category that lists virtually all of the schools, versus having to traverse many levels of categories for town/municipal/schoolboard/region/provincial-level schools. --Stephane Charette 22:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Mindmatrix about the categorization. Wikipedia standards are pretty clear about using the only the most specific category. As for the single list of all the schools, "What links here" for {{Infobox Education in Canada}} should do the trick once we standardize on this template.

[edit] Padding

I boldly added padding to the template. — Usgnus 18:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject:Education in Canada

Let's move all future discussion on this template to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education in Canada. — Usgnus 23:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Look like discussion for this template is still happening here. This is what people expect, unless we turn the entire talk page into a redirect (which I've seen done for other template in case we want to consider it). --Stephane Charette 16:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cat removed

I removed Category:Schools in Canada, as the convention is to put articles only in the lowest subcat, that is relevant. Also, sometimes its necessary to specify a sorting paramater for a category. As well, for an editor, its not instantly obvious why an article is in a category not specified in the article (stubs are ok, because the category has the word "stub" in it). --Rob 06:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I recategorized all remaining schools that had been placed manually in Category:Schools in Canada. -- Usgnus 19:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grades

For the Grades field, the label is linked instead of the value. This is to allow footnotes to work with the value. -- Usgnus 16:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I must say I think it looks better when the value is linked. Especially since none of the other labels have links. You can still use footnotes in an infobox: see Toronto District School Board for example, which uses the same footnote style references but at the bottom of the article instead of within the infobox. --Stephane Charette 16:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I can see what the problem will be. If you pass in a <ref>...</ref>, then it will be surrounded by the link from within the template. Hmmm... Maybe we need an additional optional postfield text. Yuk. Ok, I see why you changed the link to be on the label. --Stephane Charette 16:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The Template:Infobox University has many labels linked, and I think it looks fine. And tel, fax and e-mail are wikilinked. -- Usgnus 16:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language field

I've just reverted a change to the label "Language", to make it "Languages". I believe that most schools in Canada have a single language. (Of course I'm biased having come from the French education system in Ontario.) The articles and templates I've seen are mostly either for English-language schools, or French-language schools. Every once in a while -- but definitely the minority -- we have a school with dual-track English and French. I don't oppose changing the field from Language to Languages, but I think it should be for the right reason. --Stephane Charette 01:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Telephone numbers

Wikipedia is not a telephone directory. Telephone numbers for schools should not be included. I suggest removing these for all schools. pschemp | talk 15:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Noted. I'll bring it up right now on WT:EiC. --Stéphane Charette 18:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Discussion is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education in Canada#Should the infobox have fields for telephone numbers. --Stéphane Charette 18:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Areacode, phone, fax, and e-mail fields have been removed. --Stéphane Charette 03:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a lot of fixing to do now. Each of the articles using those fields still contains the information on the page even though it isn't being shown and it needs to be removed. Anyone have a bot or AWB set up so this can be fixed? pschemp | talk 04:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. We have quite a few fields that have been removed over the past year. This is the advantage of using a template. You fix the template once, and all articles are "fixed". Yes, it is true that hundreds of school articles have data fields that are now unused. This isn't a big deal. The information in those fields is simply ignored. --Stéphane Charette 09:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The concern is the same as having the numbers listed. The information is still there and still easily available thus making the potential for abuse high. pschemp | talk 23:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The potential for abuse for those schools is no higher than prior to Wikipedia articles having been written. The information that was in the infobox is publicly available and actually much more easily gathered from school board websites than to hit "edit" on every wikipedia article and see if a field has text in it. --Stéphane Charette 23:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but leaving it in there makes it *easier* to find. Why should we enable that? pschemp | talk 23:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. I disagree that it is easier. The school board web sites -- still linked to from the school board articles -- typically have the list of phone numbers available on a single page. Meaning 1 web page with hundreds of phone numbers, thus much easier than what we have on Wikipedia.
  2. On top of point #1 above, the information is publically available, and thus does not pose a security concern.
  3. Going into more than 1 thousand school articles to remove a previously optional text field of public information would be a resource sink, and defeats one of the big advantages of using templates.
  4. Personally, I think we've lost so many editors at WP:EiC over the past few months due to the problems with AfDs and WP:SCHOOL that I'm strongly against wasting anyone's time going through all those articles to remove the phone numbers since the template has been fixed to no longer display these fields.
--Stéphane Charette 00:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I didn't say we should "force" anyone to do that. Just asked if someone wanted to because it should be done. No need to get so upset about it. Superfluous information should be removed as a cleanup matter period. It isn't a waste of anyone's time to do so. It might be a waste of *your* time, but there are lots of wikignome like people who enjoy that type of thing. It isn't for you to say that they are wasting their time. With AWB it could be done quite quickly anyway. pschemp | talk 01:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right. I guess I didn't want to have to add it to WP:EiC#Cleanup needed as we're already falling behind. --Stéphane Charette 01:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template copy

Seems we've been copied.  ;) This template also exists as Template:Infobox Education in the United States. Just to note in case someone fixes something or adds something significant, it may make sense to take a peek at the U.S. version to see if they suffer from or need the same thing. --Stéphane Charette 18:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Student council

Student council stuff has been mentionned and/or discussed a few times already, including here and here. It especially doesn't belong in the infobox. Anyone thinking it does belong there please make a case for it on WT:EiC before adding it back. --Stéphane Charette 06:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with you that Student Council information is not important enough to be a section in its own right, the purpose of the infobox is to provide tidbits of relevant information that exists at most schools. Let's face it, just about every high school has a Student Council of some sort with a President. This is a person relevant to the school, just as members of the Administration are.
As to your arguments on the other pages, about notability, a Student Council President is definitely more notable than the custodian (which is in the infobox). And for verifiability, this is something that should be tested on a case-by-case basis, and is no reason to disclude the Student Council President field altogether. --216.13.78.165 02:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
You're right. (I didn't come up with these fields, I simply converted from the old template to the new style template.) If it was a good time to do this, I'd nominate a few of the original fields for deletion, such as administrator, custodian, and the grade-specific enrollment fields. As it is, mostly due to what is about to happen because of WP:SCHOOL, I think it is wisest to not rock the boat. Personally, I think student council president ("why just the president?"...see where this is going?) needs to stay out of the infobox. --Stéphane Charette 05:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Postal code

Please see the existing discussion on telephone numbers, as well as the discussion over at WT:EiC#Should the infobox have fields for telephone numbers. While I agree that Wikipedia is not a directory, it does not prevent us from providing some location-specific information to place the articles in the right context. In this case, the physical location of schools is likely important to the reader, and part of the location information is the postal code. --Stéphane Charette 01:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The postal code is not the physical location of schools. It is specifically for routing mail through the postal service. —Centrx→talk • 01:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Postal codes tell a lot about where a building is located, and as an added bonus, they are standardized throughout the country. Anyone who has lived in a relatively large Canadian city can tell you what part of the city is referenced by the postal code, especially since in cities the codes are assigned in order as you move through the city. --Stéphane Charette 02:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
In other words, the information is only useful for people who happen to live in the same city as the school? and nevertheless unnecessary given that they can simply look it up in a map? —Centrx→talk • 02:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
All articles on Wikipedia can be looked up elsewhere, if you have the resource material handy. --Stéphane Charette 18:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but that just brings us back to the original problem: Wikipedia is not an address directory. What other reason is there for including the postal code other than that someone may use it to navigate on a map or send a letter? —Centrx→talk • 02:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I think we should just drop the postal code, and keep the street address. Also, we should add map coordinates, like what's done for geographical articles. Centrx, I agree something used merely for contacting a school, isn't appropriate (hence the problem with postal codes, phone numbers, email, etc...). But locating something on map, seems entirely appropriate. While people in the area probably can find the school on a map easily, I think it would be quite nice for others to be able to click on a link and find something in Google Maps (or whatever) and visually see where in the world it is. I don't care if somebody can physically find their way to a school (not our concern) but I do want them to quickly see where it is visually, to put things in context (especially important if an articles discusses programs/details directly related to things in the local area, that would appear on a typical map). --Rob 03:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox colours

Note that some schools actually do customize the infobox colours. For example, see St. George's School (Vancouver). Thus, I've reverted the recent changes. --Stéphane Charette 01:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That is correct, I didn't see that particular page, the infobox looked very somewhat unathesitc to me. Anyways, I still believe the homepage should be at the bottom of the list like similar infoboxes, I don't see why it is so prominent.Epson291 05:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I moved the homepage to the bottom of the infox box like it was, and similar to other infoxboxes. The colors remained of course.Epson291 02:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location good, contact bad

There's been renewed conflict over the presence of the address information. I believe Wikipedia policy/practice suggessts we should remove contact information, but may keep location information (as its an essential element to a school). So, first, the postal code can be removed (I thought it was, but apparently its back). Also, potentially, we could move to using co-ordinates, instead of street addresses, like many articles on stationary items. I don't suggest any changes at this moment, as much discussion is needed, and a change would require lots of work, and affect thousands of articles. But I think the premise that the location is worth including, and but not contact information, should be the guideling principal, to whatever is done. --Rob 14:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/f/Template_talk%7EInfobox_Education_in_Canada_2c32.html"