Template talk:Cheshire Secondary Schools

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is related to WikiProject Schools, an attempt to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Template	This page is not an article and has, therefore, not been given a rating on the quality scale.	Schools Portal
NA	This article has been rated as NA-Importance within Schools.

	Cheshire Portal This article is supported by the Cheshire WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the Project Page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.
Template	This article has been rated as template-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-Priority on the priority scale.

Blimey - is this a good idea for a template? There's *so* much information on it, and for it to be splashed on potentially every high school page in Cheshire... Incidentally, are the schools meant to be listed alphabetically? Doesn't appear that way for Warrington at least, which also seems to have grown an extra school in the case of Golborne! Divy 16:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This spun out of the creation of the Cheshire towns template (btw. that looks much better now). I've trialled it on Middlewich High School, but I think if it were to go on every high school in Cheshire it would need a much better structure. Unless anyone can think of a better one then it might be better to get rid of it. The schools were originally listed alphabetically but when I shrunk it (e.g. Padgate, Birchwood, Orford etc as Warrington) then that has been lost. And Golborne is WA3 :-) Salinae 21:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

This template would look much better if you removed all the redundant red links. Dahliarose 23:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dahliarose. Redlinks in navigation templates seem to serve no useful purpose. I suggest that it would be better to include the blue links only and add new articles for notable schools as they are created, which is the norm in almost all such templates. Does anyone object to that approach? Xn4 04:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It might be an idea to point people at this discussion on the Cheshire project's talk page (I'll do it.) If you are interested in Cheshire particularly, I invite you to join the project. Two ideas: (a) comment out the redlinks at the moment, allowing them to be uncommented as more schools are added; (2) convert the redlinks into ordinary text, which can then be made into links when the articles are written. on each of these ways, the work of collating the list won't be entirely lost, which would happen on simple removal.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I would go with converting the red links to ordinary text rather than removing them altogether. Salinae 12:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer on balance to keep the redlinks. There are points for and against of course. At least we have a comprehensive list of the schools on the template which is easy to consult. If the red links were removed and someone writes an article on a red-linked school without realising the template exists, it will remain unlinked, whereas if the red link were there it would automatically turn blue. And the red links are a good reminder for those perusing the template that maybe they should write at least a stub. I have found the red links in List of places in Cheshire a stimulus to write at least a few words when I have been writing some of the church articles. Peter I. Vardy 13:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I understand it navigation templates are not supposed to be comprehensive lists. There is already a List of schools in Cheshire which is linked from the bottom of the nav box. It's probably unlikely that articles will ever be written for most of these schools and if they are it would easy enough to add them to the template. We don't allow red links in the Berkshire template and this has proved to be a good incentive as people have been encouraged to write articles once they've found that they can't simply have a red link. To my mind the red links look very messy. I think the hidden comments is a very good idea. Dahliarose 13:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Navigation templates may not have to be comprehensive, but that is no reason to say that they should never be, or should never aspire to be. I don't really go with the idea that one can reach a judgment of what is and isn't going to be written in order to remove content from the template. I'm pleased there is a local project policy for Berkshire, but this is not Berkshire, and I neither see any requirement written anywhere on wikipedia that states that the template should not be a comprehensive list nor do I see anywhere that a (navigation) template should avoid containing similar information to a simple list, as it is being packaged for a different reason and function in the two cases. (if it was a requirement, most navigation templates would be capable of being deleted, and so on.) Like Peter L Vardy, I have often used redlinked items in navigation templates myself to write the missing articles, and it would have been quite tricky sometimes to do this otherwise. The aesthetic issue is lessened somewhat by making the contents of the template hidden by default. Finally, emphasizing a point I hinted at above, I see no good reason why removing content from a template should be considered a good idea. My prefernce is for either leaving them as they are, or else, in second place, converting them to ordinary text. The other options (including the hidden text one), I think the costs associated with the other options would be that it could prove messy to implement and alter as new articles are written, and this would be for no good discernable benefit, given the content hiding option in place.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This thread was instigated following a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. We were really trying to make all the UK school templates follow a consistent format which they now nearly all do. I suppose it doesn't really matter too much if the Cheshire template is different from the rest. My preference would be to remove the red links, but if this is not acceptable could we perhaps just change the red links to text which would at least be more aesthetically pleasing? Dahliarose 17:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that there aren't that many red links left, couldn't stubs be created for all the remaining schools? cf. All Hallows Catholic High School, Macclesfield :-) Salinae 12:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be brilliant if someone could create articles for the remaining schools but I think it would be safer to create proper referenced articles rather than stubs which are likely to be nominated for deletion. Schools have to prove their notability. If an article gets deleted then it's much more difficult to make a case for a replacement. Dahliarose 14:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

My understanding from when Middlewich High School was proposed for deletion is that there is a general precedent for keeping all verifiable real high schools.Salinae 21:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority that go to AFD do get kept but normally because people come along and expand the articles to prove notability. However, quite a few school articles don't go through AFD and just disappear via the PROD process so unless someone is watching the page it could go within five days while you're away on holiday. Dahliarose 22:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)