STDs tend not to help anybody. I don't think any of us _need_ them, and I think they are best avoided.
Mark
On 30/01/07, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
We might try having specific guideline for what is *not* enough: Infobox data: | name = Bronx High School of Science | native_name = | logo = | motto = | established = (unless pre 1880 ) | city = | state = | province = | country = USA | campus = | type = | affiliation = | president = | principal = | headmaster = | rector = | dean = | founder = | chaplain = | chairman = | head_label = | head = | faculty = | students = | enrollment = | grades = | address = | district = | oversight = | accreditation = | mascot = | colors = | newspaper = | yearbook = | Phone | Email | admission |Tuition | website = | picture = as well as: size of building date of building unless pre-1880 names of teaches and coaches names of sports & athletic teams (unless unusual for type) names of other groups (unless unusual for type) typical daily schedule: typical pattern of courses: names & masters of houses or other divisions subjects offered (unless unusual for type) events held nearby not connected with school
(unless any of these should be exceptionally notable, which still gives some wiggle-room--etc. Problem areas, % going to further ed, SAT scores, Advanced Placement Classes rank in district, --all these are notable above some level, but the level will depend on area and type
I've tested it on public & private high schools in NYC & suburbs: it fits, except of course that some schools I know to be notable have not taken the opportunity to put anything about their notability in the article.
(and some notable ones have inserted long paragraphs about their perfectly ordinary parking lots--we will also need a std for material that does not belong.
How does it work elsewhere?
On 1/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/01/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
What can we really do to contact the nebulous "community", though? David and I and others have been bitching and moaning about this at the slightest provocation for six months, but the project is big and you can only chat to so many people. Short of putting out quarterly Signpost announcements saying "The following seven areas of coverage are the ones that piss our readers off the most. Please make them less crap, we'd all live happier lives", I'm not sure we can easily do much about it.
A weekly OTRS report in the Signpost would be a really good idea, actually, and would probably help a lot.
A common but less worrying issue is a simple lack of context and scale
- many of these articles are seized by one enterprising student or
another to write about the school as they see it; these usually aren't *so* bad, but they tend to have a very blurred line as to what is and isn't appropriate material, which then leads into articles that the school is understandably annoyed by the existence of simply because, well, they're linked with this amateurish, hit-and-miss, erratically accurate and conceptually blinkered article. (These are often the hardest to deal with, in many ways)
The main problem with our school articles is that they're largely crap, and therefore "non-notable" has been used as the excuse to delete them.
- d.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l