Template talk:Infobox school/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Template-protected edit request on 15 November 2018

Please update the URL for |MOE= as the current one no longer works and redirects to www.educationcounts.govt.nz/find-school which is the successor. Already updated in sandbox and tested in school article which works perfectly. Thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done and tested. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Superfluous comma

This template generates a superfluous comma if all parameters city, county and state are provided.

See for instance Edgewood High School (Trenton, Ohio).

Could someone please fix that?

HandsomeFella (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

First off, county really isn't needed for US addresses. In that case, the parenthesis made the comma superfluous and the parenthesis are not the default; they were added by the editor. Without the parenthesis, the address is "Trenton, Butler County, Ohio", which is correct. I've seen several articles that place the county in parenthesis and am not sure when or why that became a regular practice since it really isn't necessary. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
All I can say about county is that it is a completely optional parameter. I’ve come across many US schools that were using this and had to remove it altogether. Regarding the superfluous comma, John, thoughts on this? With everything going on at the moment, I can’t remember if there was a superfluous comma before or not. But after checking the school example above, it doesn’t look that bad. Infobox university displays a superfluous comma, see Harvard University for example, unless US university addresses are formatted differently to US schools, I don’t know, Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC) - Yeah, I realised my mistake on that example, ha (in response to Jonesey95 comment below) Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Harvard University contains "Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States" in the location field. There are no extraneous or superfluous commas there. In Edgewood High School (Trenton, Ohio), there are no superfluous commas in "Trenton, Butler County, Ohio". (The parentheses that were in the |county= field before recent edits were certainly non-standard and superfluous.) Residents of some U.S. states (e.g. Virginia) and of some countries (e.g. Ireland, see Bailieboro Community School or De La Salle College Dundalk) commonly use counties to specify the location of a town or city; others (e.g. Massachusetts in the U.S.) typically do not. Saying that "county really isn't needed for US addresses" is a U.S. regional preference, not a general statement that is valid for all U.S. states. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
In US postal addresses, which this template has parameters to follow, the county is not needed since the ZIP code is included. US schools typically use the mailing address for the infobox, even instances where the mailing address is not the same as the physical location (such as Field High School and Woodridge High School). Within the text, yes, the county may be included for further clarification (especially for instances where a school is in a rural location and doesn't match the street address), but in the infobox, at least for US schools, the county parameter itself is superfluous, especially with the ZIP code and geo coordinates present. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, the parentheses came from the article, not the template, I didn't see that. Sorry guys. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The county field is not exactly superfluous, but not commonly needed either. There are two circumstances where it is useful. First, as disambiguation if there are more than one city by the same name in a given state. Second, there are a couple states (which ones is escaping me at this time) where schools are a function of county government. There, using it would be appropriate. John from Idegon (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Only instance I can think of is if you don't use the street address and ZIP code aspects and just use a very general location. If you use a street address with a ZIP code, which seems to be the standard for US schools, the county is superfluous and non-standard since each ZIP code has a unique "city, state" name (and like I already mentioned doesn't always match the physical location of the school), on top of being able to link to specific articles. Even in instances where the school is a function of the county government, that seems more appropriate for the school district parameter than the street address one. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Please do not remove values of the |county= parameter (used in 4,000+ articles) from articles unless you know for sure that the school is in a U.S. state where people do not use counties to identify locations of towns and other places. Removing a county value from a Virginia school, for example, would be a mistake. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I always go by how the school address is listed on its own website or other sources and those follow the standard US format of "city, state, ZIP". I have yet to see a US street address, even in Virginia, that uses the county along with the city, state, and ZIP code. Again, ZIP codes are unique (as are the "city, state" names that accompany them), so using the county in a street address that has a ZIP code is redundant and non-standard in the US. For a school district article that is using a more general "location", sure, I can see using the county. But for US high school articles where a specific street address is being used in the infobox? No reason to use the county in those instances. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 9 January 2019

Please link USNWR to U.S. News & World Report for the USNWR_ranking parameter - already updated in sandbox. This follows in liaison with the other country-specific parameters which are linked to their dedicated articles such as the two NCES ones. Thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Reopen the debate about LAESTAB- formerly dfeno

This is UK specific. Each state school has two unique numbers and there has been confusion on what they mean and what they do, finding an explanation has been illusive. The older number is the dfeno now called the LAESTAB. It stays with the school and its buildings and its staff until the school ceases to exist in that form- for example merges. For purposes of school inspection Ofsted uses the URN- which refers to the governance of that school at that time.

When the state school, with its unique dfeno (LAESTAB), was directly managed by the Local Education Authority it was given an URN by Ofsted or one of its agencies. When it converted to an 'Academy' managed by a trust, for example the Bright Ideas Trust (fictitious), its URN changed as legally it is a new entity but the LAESTAB stayed the same. Two years down the line and another failed inspection, it is rebrokered, and governance passes to a new trust for example the Creative Minds Trust(fictitious) and the URN changes but the LAESTAB stayed the same, in one case no existing trust would take it on and the Local Education Authority has been asked to oversee it again with yet another URN but the LAESTAB stayed the same. (Yes, sadly there are known exceptions)

When Example Academy for Boys, merged with Example High school for Girls a new LAESTAB and URN is created, but it could be more complex if one school is subsumed into another.

Ofsted and the DFE display both numbers on most documents. Example As I understand it we are holding a large number of the LAESTAB/dfeno in a field that is not displayed. Please can we open up that field and display it adjacent to, or above the URN.

ClemRutter (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Trusts and sponsors

The governance of schools in the UK has changed quite a lot in the last few years, and stands to change again soon. Free-schools, set up by Michael Gove are failing and being re-brokered into academies, UTCs another bright idea - that is being backtracked. And then the ubiquitous Academy (English school). There are Sponsored Academies where the name of the sponsor is an important part of the description of the academy trust, and Converter Academies that have no sponsor. I was struck by the ingenious attepts to express this at Pimlico Academy (using a Infobox UK school at the time) To do this justice and to open up the editing of UK schools we need four fields

trust =
sponsor =
academy_type =
academy_date_of_conversion =

The first we have, the second we don't and is needed, the third and fourth would be nice but not essential. Please can we consider adding sponsor. ClemRutter (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Delete fields for ACT and SAT scores

As the only opposition here has stated they are retiring, there is no reason to waste any more time on this. Closing as "There is a consensus that the removal of these two parameters is endorsed". John from Idegon (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

That data is not publicly available. It is therefore unverifiable. The opportunities for gamesmanship are rife. I suggest we get rid of the fields altogether. Rhadow (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

What makes this information so essential that it must be included in this infobox? ElKevbo (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@ElKevbo: As a general reference encyclopedia, the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide its readers with a general understanding of the subjects of its articles. In the context of articles about particular schools, one topic of interest to readers is the quality of the education that those schools provide as determined by external assessments by other educational organizations. While they are not the only measurements of educational quality, the average scores that students at particular schools receive on the SAT, ACT, or other standardized tests are widely-used measurements of educational quality, and as such, are not indiscriminate information or statistics about the subjects of those articles, and since these tests are widely known by the general public, they probably do not require explanatory text to provide context about them. (However, if context was necessary, the SAT parameter in the infobox template had a link to the Wikipedia article about that standardized test.) Like I said before, the Wikipedia style manual for infoboxes states that the purpose of an infobox is to summarize and identify key facts about the subject of an article at a glance and the SAT parameter does just that for schools. (Additionally, your comments strongly suggest that you should review Wikipedia's etiquette guidelines and civility conduct policies because the tone of your comments is rude, and even more so because this is not the first time you have been rude to me in a talk page discussion.) -- Jajhill (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2019‎ (UTC)
Please cite some reliable sources that support your assertions that these test scores provide accurate information about the "quality of the education that those schools provide." ElKevbo (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@ElKevbo: Despite the ongoing replication crisis across the social sciences that has implicated educational research in particular, (Aschwandan; Tyson; Makel & Plucker) literature reviews and contemporary studies about the predictive validity and reliability of standardized testing have consistently shown for decades that standardized tests have been and remain highly predictive of academic success. (Neisser et. al; Kuncel et. al; Sternberg et. al; Wai et. al; Kuncel & Hezlett; Gygi et. al; Klieger et. al) Additionally, standardized tests, and the SAT in particular, have been demonstrated to have this predictive effect above GPAs alone, in part because GPAs are influenced by teacher expectations (which in turn, can be influenced by self-fulfilling prophecies about individual students), and this is presumably why many colleges and universities still request SAT, ACT, and GRE scores on admissions forms. (Shaw et. al; Jussim & Harber)
By extension, the statistically average performance of students on such standardized tests at individual schools is a measure of the educational quality that the schools provide, which is why the No Child Left Behind Act required the education departments of state governments which wished to receive federal funding under that program to develop standardized tests to monitor the educational quality of the school districts within their respective states. However, and more importantly, the need for reliable sources to verify the assertion that test scores provide accurate information about educational quality is secondary in this discussion to the concern about whether the standardized test score data is publicly available and verifiable, as that was why the parameter was deleted in the first place, and as I reiterate, such a concern (though perfectly legitimate) is not applicable in this case for the reasons I stated above. (I would also add that the tone of your subsequent comments has also been rude.) -- Jajhill (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2019‎ (UTC)
Cut it out with the "you're not allowed to ask me questions; it's rude!" bullshit.
Nearly all of the sources you've cited are irrelevant to the question at hand which is why should include this information in this infobox. Exactly what are are readers supposed to learn from this information - SAT and ACT scores - and why is is this essential information to include in this infobox that is intended for use in nearly every school article including the vast majority that aren't even in the U.S.? ElKevbo (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@ElKevbo: I never said that you are not allowed to ask me questions because asking questions is rude, nor did I say that the specific questions you asked me were rude. In keeping with Wikipedia etiquette guidelines, I politely stated that the tone of your comments was rude, which according to those guidelines, I am more than allowed to mention if I feel that way. I disagree with your assertion that the sources I cited are irrelevant to your questions. I also do not agree with your suggestion that I have not answered your question about why I think that a parameter for SAT data should be included in the template.
You asked me to cite reliable sources supporting the assertion that test scores provide accurate information about the quality of the education that schools provide. The sources I have cited demonstrate that test scores, such as those on the SAT, ACT, and GRE, are highly predictive of academic success at subsequent levels of education, and as such, the average scores of students at individual schools on those tests constitutes a measurement of the educational quality provided by those schools, and one that is preferable to alternative measurements (such as GPAs). As I stated before, in keeping with the Wikipedia style manual for infoboxes, their purpose is to summarize and identify key facts about the subject of an article at a glance, and what I said before is that I think that the SAT parameter does just that for articles about schools where the average SAT score is publicly available and verifiable. Likewise, since there are hundreds or thousands of schools in the United States where this data is available, there are many articles where the parameter will be relevant, and for those that it is not, the parameter can be made optional.
Your last comments included a personal attack with profanity, which is a violation of Wikipedia civility conduct policy. Since I have already warned you twice that your previous comments were rude, and your previous comments were a clear violation of site policy, this is the final civility warning I am going to issue. If you continue, I am going to report this incident to the Wikipedia administrators' incidents noticeboard. -- Jajhill (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2019‎ (UTC)
  • Support as no one has offered significant evidence that this information is important enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox (for what it's worth as this has already been done). ElKevbo (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Post closing note

This certainly went south quickly. I neither know or care whether there is some history between a couple participants or not, that isn't relevant. I closed this as I have for two reasons. First, Jajhill's arguments gained no traction with anyone. Second, Jajhill has stated at ANI he's leaving over this, so since he's the sole opposition, there is no reason to drag this out.

Not factoring into this close, I'd also like to remark that whereas Jajhill did an admirable job showing that there are many who believe that standardized testing is a good predictor of future academic performance, he failed to mention that there are also multiple significant sources that do not share that opinion. Further, the arguement (albeit I'm sure not intentionally) is simply a red herring. There is nothing shown or even existing that makes any correlation between the individual performance of individual students and the quality of education a given school provides. It's as much a function of the individuals' abilities as the quality of their instruction. Second, there are no studies that show performance on a college entry exam has any correlation to success in life. If the goal of secondary education was to prepare students to enter tertiary education, then perhaps some metric that may predict college performance might be useful. That is not however, the goal of secondary education, especially in the US (which is all this applies to. SAT and ACT are only used in the US.) The goal of secondary education is to prepare students to enter the workplace and lead adult lives. Every year, the ROI ratio for college tuition is decreasing, and at near exponential rates. The best paying jobs nowadays do not require college degrees.

None of this was a factor in the close (which was essentially simply administrative), but perhaps when he calms down, Jajhill may benefit from thinking this through. Thanks to all. John from Idegon (talk) 09:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UK schools: Ofsted

Hey,

The UK schools template has a field for Ofsted reports, which links back and is great. But it doesn't have a field for the result of the report, which seems more important. Is there a reason for this? Or indeed, any consensus for how to include (or not) Ofsted inspections in the body of a UK school article? Joe (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why that particular editing decision was made, but a few reasons I can think of are a) it saves a parameter, b) the result of the report is minor trivia (that may or may not change year-to-year) that anyone interested can just go visit themselves, or c) no one thought to do it. My guess would be a combination of a and b. However, as with all templates the potential of change is open for discussion. Primefac (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Factually, both the comment and the reply are wrong. Each UK school has two important reference numbers- the LAESTAB and the URN. The infobox does not allow you to enter the LAESTAB (formerly the dfeno) as the field has been removed. You must enter the ofsted URN.
When you fill in the URN field- three things happen- there is a fixed link to the Department of Education ( DoE who mainly use the LAESTAB)- the Ofsted URN is rendered linked to https://get-information-schools.service.gov.uk a very important site- and a link rendered as Tables took you to the ofsted report. This has changed and you now land here and the ofsted report is linked six lines down.
With HMG having changed the ground rules- this seems like an excellent time to revisit the issue. HMG has has two handles on schools- the DoE controls the funding and the buildings- but a separate agency is responsible for the testing, and monitoring the staff and pupils- this is called Ofsted and its reports are crucial to the survival of a school. If a school is deemed to be failing it is re-brokered to another management company and the URN changes but the LAESTAB stays the same. We do not need a fixed link to the DoE- it is always going to be the same and off-focus. If the LAESTAB is known, a caption LAESTAB with the field existing but unrendered dfeno could be given, and on the line below URN- with the automatic links to the three urls I have given above. There are a lot of people working on this template, I don't wish to confuse by joining the coders. It is not their fault that reality is so strange and keeps changing. ClemRutter (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Fix for enrollment

So the typo correction for this parameter doesn't exactly work, when enrolment= is used instead of enrollment=, the infobox displays the typo instead of the correct spelling. Should be an easy fix, hence the edit request. Kirbanzo(userpage - talk - contribs) 21:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox school/Archive 6
Information
Enrolment2300
Infobox school/Archive 6
Information
Enrollment2300
Not sure what you mean, Kirbanzo - the examples at the right seem to do it properly. Primefac (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The enrolment one you put isn't working. I have a screenshot, I'll post it ASAP. Kirbanzo(userpage - talk - contribs) 21:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
That's not a typo but a valid spelling in some countries e.g., Canada. ElKevbo (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
trout Self-trout - probably should have checked for alternate spellings first. My bad. Kirbanzo(userpage - talk - contribs) 21:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
No worries! I thought you meant that it wasn't switching between the spellings; it's been known to happen if someone messes up the code! Primefac (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Request: add NPSN field for Indonesian Schools

This is Indonesian specific. Each Indonesian school has one unique numbers. It's called the NPSN (Nomor Pokok Sekolah Nasional). Ilham151096 (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I support this one! WhisperToMe (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Automatic short descriptions

Would automatic short descriptions of the form "Type in location" be desirable? I have put Module:Type in location in the sandbox which does exactly this. It doesn't generate a description if the title doesn't include one of the words school academy or college to avoid giving a bad description for pages such as Fulda, Minnesota. More words can easily be added in the future for other languages, but this should catch 90%+ of schools.

Here are some example descriptions generated for random pages:

What do you think? WikiProject Schools, WikiProject Short descriptions and Module:Type in location creator Galobtter notified. --Trialpears (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

  • You could use Module:Is infobox in lead for cases such as Fulda, Minnesota. The examples you gave seem good, so you have my support. --Gonnym (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
    That's even better! Only problem is that we have almost 50 redirects to list but that could easily be done in a subpage if there's consensus for this. --Trialpears (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
    Know the feeling. One of the reasons why I dislike template redirects. --Gonnym (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure where you intend to use the finished descriptions, though could be useful: outside the UK. Here as always we have a school system that is just a collection of exceptions- I really should be putting together a list of test cases to be used for new initiatives. The list of random examples contains no typical LEA state school, or stand alone Academy. The issue of MATs is not addressed- but that hasn't been sorted out elsewhere either! I see no example where we test ceremonial county against administrative county? It looks good but the devil is alwys in the detail. I think I need to change my username to reflect my manic optimism. ClemRutter (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Could you please give article links of examples of each type of case you mentioned above? The data, as always, depends on what is available in the infobox. --Gonnym (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The finished descriptions will be used on mobile while searching and for recommended articles at the bottom of the page see WP:SHORTDESC for more info. --Trialpears (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
One request, could you please add the short description code to a sub-template and not place it in the infobox itself? --Gonnym (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Looking more closely at the code, it seems that there is a pretty big bug with it. I've changed the infobox at The Hundred of Hoo Academy to the sandbox version and the page now displays the first line as "Academy Academy Academy Academy". I'm not sure if you left the previous lines of code for debugging or not. --Gonnym (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
That is purely for debuging. It displays the processing of the type parameter step by step to make it easier for me to spot issues. It shouldn't be necessary anymore so I've removed it. I will put it in a subpage. --Trialpears (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Test set

Lets do this properly, and I invite everyone to join in.

In my authority- Medway- but ceremonially Kent.

The templateTemplate:Schools in Kent gives the full list of schools acress the two administrative counties.

This includes a lot of independant, private and our three public schools.

Here we find teo of England oldest schools

Note administratively Kent and Medway are separate- one is not in the other.

Here are the short descriptions generated for these tests:
I think all of these are fine and would support implementing this in the main template since that would make checking short descriptions so much faster and I have never seen any problems other than formatting issues while testing. --Trialpears (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Let me get up to speed on this. Where do we see this rendered- is it proposed that it goes in the Infobox schools template? If and only if there is a way to do a manual override this seems to be a very good idea- but at all costs we must prevent the re-launching of a Infobox UK Schools spin off to avoid it. Using the limited test set, can I point out some of the issues.

Here are the short descriptions generated for these tests:
  • The Hundred of Hoo Academy Academy in Rochester, Kent, England.Not actually in Rochester, that is only the POSTTOWN- It is a non-selective academey, on the Hoo Peninsula, Kent, England Tha address in the infobox is actually now wrong- the field adress_line_2 is missing, presumably lost in the transition from Infobox UK Schools. The assumption, that everywhere is in a city, is US-centric.
  • St John Fisher Catholic School Voluntary aided school in Chatham, Medway, England Misses the fact that this in a non-selective faith school, or that it is mixed. Secondly, Chatham, Medway, England is nonsense as there is no physical location called Medway. Medway is a local authority.
  • Fort Pitt Grammar School Grammar school in Chatham, Kent, England Misses the fact that this in a Grammar School for girls only, misses that this has academy status
  • Rainham Mark Grammar School Grammar School in Rainham, United Kingdom Misses the fact that this in a Mixed Grammar School which is unusual in Medway, misses that this has academy status
  • Strood Academy Academy in Strood, Kent, England Again we hit the CITY problem. Strood is a suburb within Rochester, which is within Kent (we use the ceremonial county here),
  • Leigh Academy Academy in Dartford, Kent, England. OK- but misses that this is non selective, mixed
  • Leigh UTC School in Dartford, Kent, England (Has no type parameter in infobox so defaults to school)Misses the fact that this is a UTC -from its name- and that means that entry is at 14 so is not a 11-18 school at all. It does have a feeder 11-14 school, the Inspiration Academy!
  • Longfield Academy School in Longfield, Kent, EnglandMisses the fact that this in a non-selective and it is mixed.
  • Benenden School Independent boarding school in Benenden, Kent, England OK
  • Rochester Independent College School in Rochester, Kent, England Misses the fact that this is private. I am about to go in with a pair of scissors as the article is tagged as advertising copy.
  • The King's School, Canterbury Independent, day and boarding school in Canterbury, Kent, England OK
  • King's School, Rochester Independent day and boarding school in Rochester, Kent, England OK

So we have problems with geography caused by trying to bend UK addresses to US system. We have a problem with selection, gender and the age range offered by the school, academies and the rare UTC. Governance is very important. Personaly I would like to see details of the controlling MAT (multi-academy trust but that has not made the infobox yet.

I will now try to add a few London and Manchester schools to the test set, as these will be more difficult.ClemRutter (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

ClemRutter Thank you for the detailed feedback! In general I think the non-optimal types aren't a major problem since they aren't incorrect, just not as specific as possible. I am a bit concernd about your comment for Leigh UTC which seem to imply that simply calling it a "school" would be misleading. The largest problem would be the city issue where the best I can do to prevent it would be ignoring the city parameter for schools in the UK, which may be a good idea anyway since many of these descriptions are exceeding the recommended 40 characters. I can't do much better than this using an infobox based solution since the only information avalible is that in the infobox and using a bot to parse the lead would require a lot more complexity and have a larger risk of generating an inappropriate description. I also want to emphasise that most articles don't have a short description and if they have one from Wikidata it's usually worse than these (for example "school[sic] in Kent, UK" vs "Independent boarding school in Benenden, Kent, England"). If someone has specified a shortdesc on Wikipedia that will be used and if someone want to improve the automatic description it's easily overriden. The descriptions only have to be better then nothing which I think they are. --Trialpears (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for appearing negative: in the context of professional software developement a wide dataset is needed. In the context of giving your time freely a smile and a hug is more reassuring. Hovering over the extended dataset one can see that a lot of volunteer time has been expended on working over the geograhical flaw and trying to accurately describe the nature of each of theses secondart schools. There is no way from the infobox to work out that Charles Darwin School ( London school on LB Bromley) is in Biggin Hill in Kent, (it has a TN Tonbridge postcode, with a POSTTOWN of Westerham whereever that may be!) or that Parrs Wood High School is in East Didsbury.

Should we ask to modify the infobox template to make it easier to write short descriptions. Would it be helful to add address_line_2? Should a field locality be added? Does Wikidata give any helpful clues?

More interesting though is what we want a short description to say, particularly if we are trying to stay within 40 characters. I would want to say

In most cases the word England could be ommitted. In non-selective counties such as Stockport, non-selective school with comprehensive if the word school is in the title ,wi h comprehensive school if not.

You are mainly right- that the examples above (location errors excluded) are better than nothing- but can't we try to do better. ClemRutter (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

ClemRutter Very sorry for this long delay, I'm not sure exactly how to fix the location problem, I've fixed the local authority problem, but the not in a town problem is worse. I could replace in with near which should always be accurate. Regarding the 40 character recomendation, my phone seem to be cutting them of at about 50 characters, making the limit quite important. I will shortly add short descriptions for all articles listed below. --Trialpears (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Trialpears, those descriptions above are good and I don't see anything wrong with them. I would have preferred something like "11–18 mixed, secondary school and sixth form with academy status in town/city, county, country. But as there is a limit, those above will suffice and the user will be able to see more information about that school when they click on it anyway. So for The Hundred of Hoo Academy, the short description would be Academy in Hoo, Kent, England. Upon looking at its infobox, I do not understand what ClemRutter is saying with "adress_line_2 is missing, presumably lost in the transition from Infobox UK Schools". Nothing was lost, the respective address-related parameters are filled in as appropriate, Rochester just needs to be changed to Hoo. If you look at this before-merge revision and bot-merge diff, you'll see the address is the same.
The town/city is not strictly limited to town or city only, it's also for villages and the post town can be included if necessary, separated with a comma. The country should not be omitted, Wikipedia is read worldwide. Looking at St John Fisher Catholic School and Fort Pitt Grammar School - the first is Chatham, Medway, England and the other is Chatham, Kent, England. Medway just needs to be changed to Kent - so I can see there are infoboxes where the address has not been filled in correctly but these will be rectified. Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended data set

Here are some London and Manchester schools to look at:

London
London borough of Greenwich		 London
London borough of Bromley		 Manchester
All in Stockport		 Manchester
In the city of Manchester

--ClemRutter (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I've moved the lists into a table to make it easier to see and comment -prevent scrolling and large white space. Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
London
London borough of Greenwich		 London
London borough of Bromley		 Manchester
All in Stockport		 Manchester
In the city of Manchester

Here's the list with short descriptions. It's probably a take it or leave it proposal; since there simply isn't more information in the infoboxes. There could be minor changes such as in or near but the information it self won't be getting any better. --Trialpears (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

These look good, how come some are missing the country? I can see some are using the flagcountry template which is not right but what about the others which are using the country parameter correctly? Reddish Vale High School for example has Reddish Vale Road on the city parameter when it should be on address -this will be rectified. My only question here is any changes made to the address-related parameters and type will be automatically updated in the short description right? Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Steven (Editor), London is deemed to be so well known that Infobox settlement's short descriptions, which this system is based on, doesn't include the country. I was briefly wondering about this as well, but it seems like a sensible to do. The same thing is done for New York, New York; England, United Kingdom and a few more. I will look at fixing possible flagcountry problems, either by doing an AWB run to remove these or adding it to the template. All changes to the infobox will automatically be reflected in the short description. --Trialpears (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I see, in that case that's okay and no need to add it to the template, infoboxes should not be using flags anyway per MOS and school article guidelines. I can sort these out no problem, pleased to hear that changes made would be automatically reflected -perfect :) Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
ClemRutter would you be fine with me opening an edit request? --Trialpears (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Sure.ClemRutter (talk) 07:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Basic data set

Medway Kent



Lets finish the job. There will be many occasions when this can be used in future.ClemRutter (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Please sync with the sandbox to add automatic short descriptions per the discussion above. --Trialpears (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Trialpears, how come you added local authority to sandbox? Is this to exclude it from short descriptions? The local authority shouldn't be in the address anyway but I don't think a code is needed here as these will be rectified. Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Steven (Editor) to exclude it. I can remove it if you want though. It changes Chatham, Medway, England to Chatham, England and I'm unsure which one is preferable. --Trialpears (talk) 06:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I'd remove it and don't worry about those articles which have the local authority in its address, they are incorrect and will be changed accordingly. Steven (Editor) (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Sure thing! Now the revision to be synced is 915820897 --Trialpears (talk) 14:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Awesome Steven (Editor) (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Done Primefac (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Parallel and related discussion

For informtion onlt Parallel and related discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography--ClemRutter (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Using the data set to propose a few changes.

I am working on Red House Academy a school stub in Sunderland, and in frustration came back to the dataset to check my sanity. This school is notable in having excluded more students than anywhere else- 50% against an average of 2.3%. Firstly it had two references both self written- an no Ofsted reports. Nowhere did it say which MAT multiple academy trust was overseeing it. The Ofsted report has a field- but this is dependent on the URN totherwise it gives you a polite 404. I switched the template bake from UK school to school- no change.

  • The academy sponsor field- I added that to Type- so it read Example text and that does render correctly but concatenating fields is not a good idea, and certainly it is a NO NO fo use raw HTML markup. We must recognise that this type field does two jobs- educational type like comprehensive/all through/ grammar, and governance type, sponsored academy, maintained, free school, UTC, independent, Clarenden, private.
Looking at the dataset I found Cheadle Hulme High School where they are using a field trust, but it is rendering further down the page. I state it must render directly after the field type I can fix that if you promise not to shout at me.
Separating the two uses of type, will be a lot more complicated so I suggest that is left till later- possible a summer of code initiative.
  • 404 on Ofsted without a URN, has a simple solution. The URN is a Ofsted number not a Department for Education Number. The Department for Education Number uses the LAESTAB number (dfeno) which we are not displaying. The two are heavily intertwined and both are displayed on official documents written from the governments POV.We just need to separate them- there is no magic to linking to a Department for Education Home Page. So for simplicity as well as improved accuracy we add the field LAESTAB. We change the rendering so one line contains the
::Department for Education <space> {{{laestab}}}
::URN {{{urn}} {{{tables}}}
In effect it just means splitting the existing line, I can't see any any residual problems. In future the Ofsted field in the line below may be made conditional on the existence of an URN.ClemRutter (talk) 10:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 October 2019

Please change template call {{ifempty}} to {{if empty}} to avoid the redirect. The call to that template is transcluded in nearly 38,000 articles through being called in this template, so that unnecessary redirect has to be followed every time one of those articles is viewed. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. For further discussion see User talk:Colonies Chris. --Trialpears (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Parameter conflict

If both |other_name= and |other_names= are specified, there is no duplicate warning and only one is displayed. Example here. Frietjes? MB 16:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

MB, okay now added. there were quite a few that weren't on the list. I have simplified that chunk of code, but hopefully didn't break anything. Frietjes (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Frietjes Any chance in sorting out the UK dfeno/LAESTAB field. Its lack appears to cause the ugly display of the |URN=. I am just working on The Skinners' Kent Academy was lacking it URN (and a lot else!). When present, the label ,Department <nl/cr> for <nl/cr> Education <nl/cr> URN appears, and the field /// urn /// ///tables/// appears on the top line. At a glance it appears as that Department is the label for the the field /// urn /// ///tables/// and the label URN points to an empty field. A solution is to use Department <nl/cr> for <nl/cr> Education as the label to point /// dfeno /// ///tables///. And beneath it URN points to /// urn ///. Do click on the link I have given here or this link or The Judd School rather than rendering we have in the documentation example- as the table columns are different widths and the problem doesn't show up.--ClemRutter (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ClemRutter, is that better? Frietjes (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Frietjes In these cases it looks far better; we will find out soon if we have broken anything! If we can look again at the dfeno fix-when you have time. Thanks for the instant response. ClemRutter (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
ClemRutter, the |dfeno= and |LAESTAB= are/were discussed in the thread above. it appears as though it is not be tracked, but also not being used to display anything in the infobox. not sure if this is what you are talking about. Frietjes (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Better still- looks very good. ClemRutter (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll come back on dfeno later, when we have got the wikidata folk asking for it! URNs are fine for post 2000 work, but if you are searching records older than that, they will be archived under a dfeno. All the official GOV sites give both. That is for another day. ClemRutter (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Frietjes, can you please revert this so this can be discussed? Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of recent change

ClemRutter, there is nothing wrong with the width or layout of the infobox, the reason Department for Education URN was appearing on separates lines and the width of the infobox being of different sizes, is mainly due to the website URL. The UK infobox required users to simply type the website URL into the website parameter, which is supported in this infobox in order to accommodate the merge, but you need to follow the documentation of this infobox which is to add the {{URL}} template to the website URL — this solves the problem. Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The recent change has just improved the appearance of 5000+ pages. Is there anything that it has broken? ClemRutter (talk) 08:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Several points to make here. Steven you are saying that the problem arose when the traditional UK Infobox was merged into the Infobox. That solves one mystery. When you merge templates there is always fallout. You are saying that the two parameters were different and a fix was written to cope so that we didn't have to commission a BOT to make the change on 5000+ pages.
  • The fallout here was that the rendering of this parameter didn't work but also hundreds of editors who have been working on UK schools pages, many intermitantly have to learn new ways, and to fix the |URL= have to fix a coding problem on the |website= which involve addings the template {{UUL}}. I think not.
  • The point of a infobox is to allow all editors- newbies to wizend obsessives to add basic data to a page, and no matter how hamfisted or incompetant they are, it will be beautifully rendered on laptop and handiphone. The skill of the template writer is to take the filthy data that they input and convert it first into clean data, and then render it. Given the parameters we have, this is the best rendering possible. Templates take the realworld data and display it in the idealworld. Given the data available this is the best rendering do far.
  • Newbies to wizend obsessives don't read documenmtation- or in fact contribute to the writing of documentation. If we can get a newbie to look at WPSCH/AG we are doing well. Newbies are there to add content- our templates are there to do a little handholding. If we were talking in terms of purity and reducing machine cycles, different decisions would be made. As it stands it is the templates job to validate the data which is a far bigger task than tweaking the output rendering, but in future it should be done. That request needs to go on a different ticket.
  • Also to go on another ticket is the issue of the dfeno now called the LAESTAB. This was the traditional number used by the DFE to refer to each school in the UK. In the days of the mainframe, it was printed on my payslips and used by Teacher Pensions. It occurs on Get information about schools and is invaluable when doing pre-Ofsted research about schools and defunct schools, for example, for the History section, and is needed by the average reader doing genealogy. It has the advantage that is shows the LEA number and the establishment number in a format that makes it easy to Google. Technically the URN we display is an assessment number probably maintained by Ofsted, and the label Department for Education belongs to defno. I have written above how the twin parameters on |URN= |LAESTAB= could be rendered- I have written and been ignored- but there is always tomorrow.

So let the discussion commence. ClemRutter (talk) 09:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

ClemRutter, why did you have to write all of this... This discussion is about the undiscussed URN display change. There is nothing wrong with it. The UK school infobox is gone, newbies will come to this infobox and thus will follow the documentation which is to add {{URL}} to the website URL. However, as the majority of UK schools are on here, the website parameter is mostly an untouched parameter − website URL’S aren't changed frequently and if the URL changes, the template doesn’t need to be removed, only the address is modified. The URL template also says: “It formats the appearance of displayed URLs, while making them machine-readable as part of emitted microformat meta-data, inside templates such as infoboxes.”
I have also noticed some editors have changed {{URL}} to {{Official URL}} on some school articles which does the same thing but provides Wikidata functionality. A discussion will be needed on this as to whether this should be adopted for all schools. Back to above discussion, the change above did not “improved the appearance of 5000+ pages” — “Tables” appears below on a lot of them. I must note that the URL is being added to website URL’s on a gradual basis, so the infobox width and Department for Education URN appearing on separate lines will cease to exist - please be patient. Discussions on new parameters etc. will start after the Infobox cleanup section at the top is done as this template has many things to be removed. Steven (Editor) (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Steven (Editor) Why? Because it needed to be said. The discussion is becoming far too technocentric and not enough usercentric. I come at this from the pov of a trainer and see difficulties that maybe you wont.
There are problems here but I don't see you will have much success in persuading the end user to change their ways, we just have to cleanup their dirty data first. I can help on AGs and Documentation. ClemRutter (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Mascot image

|mascot_image= doesn't use standard infobox image handling and messes-up the infobox such as at Chino Hills High School. If there was consensus to have this in the infobox, I think we need better handling (such as |mascot_image_size=. Frietjes? MB 17:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

User:MB, given the current syntax, it's basically no different than adding an image to |mascot=. I have added two tracking categories: (1) Category:Pages using infobox school with the mascot image parameter which just tracks cases where the value passed to |mascot image= or |mascot_image= is visible (note image only shows if |mascot= is not blank). (2) Category:Pages using infobox school with a mascot image finds images in any of these parameters (assuming |mascot= is not blank). as I suspected, these two categories don't have the same pages, and many of the |mascot_image=/|mascot image= parameters are being used without actual images. in some cases there is a description of the image, or the name of a file. I would support simply merging these two parameters into one for simplicity and least astonishment of how they work. Frietjes (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I find it super-suspect to have a mascot_image parameter (or any images) at all, per WP:NFCC. --Izno (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I do not like having this parameter either. Even with a properly licensed image, its appearance in the infobox is clunky. Either use what was there in the logo parameter or drop the image, I say. Get rid of it. John from Idegon (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I also do not like this parameter, I do not see any value in keeping this and per the comments by Izno and John. Merging is definitely not a good idea and if a mascot image is needed and if it is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, then it can be simply incorporated into the body of the article. I will list this parameter for removal in the Infobox cleanup section above (an ongoing huge cleanup where a bot will perform a mass renaming and removal when discussion is finished) — anyone opposing its removal please comment below this parameter in that section. Also, if there are parameters you think should be removed, please list in the section where it can be commented on. Thanks, Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I have now removed the mascot_image parameter, any remaining uses will show up in the standard unsupported parameters tracking category. I have kept the tracking for images in the mascot parameter so those can be moved out of the infobox, or into the |logo= where appropriate. Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

School Shields

question mark Suggestion: some schools have shields. In the UK, I’d say the majority of schools have shields; it’s a major part of the defining characteristics of the institution. I believe there should be an attribute for shields here, for example the infobox for residential college. See Category:School_shields, for school shields which are used already. - Chip🐺 • #TeamTrees🌳 01:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you cannot put the "shield" in the logo parameter? That parameter displays an image without a label. Is there a reason we need a second parameter to do exactly what an existing parameter does? John from Idegon (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Concurring with John from Idegon I would even go so far as to say that the cat Category:School_shields is a misnomer and out of date to boot. I have uploaded hundreds of emblems that identify a school - far more than are in that cat. Call them shields, crests, coats of arms, whatever, but the modern term that encompasses them all in this context is 'logo' and that's the one that goes in the 'image' section of the infobox. I appreciate the suggestion but perhaps residential colleges and schools are apples and oranges. If a school has a coat of arms in addition to its logo, this can be discussed and illustrated elsewhere in the article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
If the logo parameter does indeed perform exactly as the infobox for residential colleges; I agree with John from Idegon.
Thanks for your input Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. Perhaps you are right, the naming of cat Category:School_shields may be a misnomer. I am conscious however of the frequency I see schools with both a logo and a shield.
I’ll review this tomorrow after a few test edits. - Chip🐺 •
This seems to be more of a content question than a template issue, and from a quick look, most of the UK schools (and/or the 100s I have worked on) only have one image in the infobox. Any other images can be in the body of the article. If there's going to be a debate about it I would ask Clem and Steven to weigh in here or move the thread to WT:WPSCH to get more eyes and a broader opinion on it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Concurring with John from Idegon I would even go so far as to say that the cat Category:School_shields is a misnomer- a school shield is a piece of fake silverware awarded to the winning house in the sort of sports competition I successful avoided as child and teacher! Onto the issue the infobox is there to give essential information about the school not as a dustbin (trash can) for images.MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE So question why is needed. From the UK perspective, most schools used the blazer badge on their letterhead and more recently om their bookbag. We use this logo, which is often a shield, to identify the school in the infobox.
The one modern exception is school that is wrapped into a multi-academy trust, they may have a historic logo, and the logo of the embracing trust- here one could use either or search their website for a combined image. In desperation there is also a parameter called |seal_image=, and also |image=. But if the issue is that important it will be discussed in the text so the image is not needed here. I couldn't find a single live example where this occurs in spite of trying. ClemRutter (talk) 10:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
John and Kudpung have said everything very well here, I also want to ask why the logo parameter cannot be used for the "shield"? 'Logo' is the modern term that encompasses them all as Kudpung noted so there is no need for a new parameter. There is also picture and picture2 (displayed at bottom of infobox) so there are plenty of params. It can also be added and discussed in the body of the article. It's the same for me, most of the articles I've come across only have one logo or one image, or both. I also agree the Category:School shields is a misnomer; there is only 40 files and a subcategory, and its description says "This category is for logos relating to academic institutions" which is redundant to its parent category, Category:Academic institution logos. So I will empty the category and schedule deletion, anyone opposing please let me know and I'll revert, thanks Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Steven (Editor). That sounds like the right steps. Link the MfD when you are done. John from Idegon (talk) 23:01, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
OK Steven (Editor). You may have to recategorise the images. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
I will do John and all will be recategorised Kudpung — for some it's just simply removing the category whereas for others it's changing {{Non-free logo}} to the dedicated {{Non-free school logo}} which automatically populates the Academic institution logos category. I've also uploaded new logo replacements for some of them; this one for example is super terrible haha Steven (Editor) (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

With that, it looks like we are done. However, the OP has requested I merge his draft to the high school article; Kudpung, Steven (Editor), ClemRutter, any of you would be better than I. The school's I understand have fte teachers, not Ofsted. John from Idegon (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

John, Kudpung, I have finally emptied the category, took me time due to uploading new logo replacements for most of them, and two have been tagged for deletion straight away as I redirected the articles to their locality due to issues. I have listed the category at CfD. Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Multi-academy trusts

This discussion could be placed on several pages, but as this has high visibilty, I'll start it off here. Question: Should a multi academy trust take a Infobox school infobox as Leigh Academies Trust does, or Infobox non-profit as Northern Education Trust does, or none as Academies Enterprise Trust does?

Neither template provides the UID parameter which shoud be an important link. Logic tells me that all MATs should use Infobox non-profit, but there is an argument that academy articles are invariable about the school they manage, where Infobox school is always used. Historically there is cross over, a succesful single school academy trust has been asked to sponsor another school, and became a MAT in the process. The school article and infobox followed. --ClemRutter (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi ClemRutter, well it's supposed to be Infobox school district which is being repurposed as a standard template for anything that manages multiple schools. UID parameter etc. have already been added, I'm waiting for your reply so we can push this through with the adding of new params and renaming of template. Please respond over there and to anyone else who may be interested, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Oops, memory problems yet again! I'll pop on over- can we have a few other pairs of eyes. ClemRutter (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Short descriptions

Jonesey95, I believe the country can be specified with a country code (but I don't see that stated in the documentation anymore). If used (e.g. USA), the template displays the name for that country code (e.g. United States). But the auto-generated short description is using the raw country code. Should that be fixed? MB 03:24, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

I think I have fixed it. See Kowloon Sam Yuk Secondary School. In the future, whenever you are reporting a problem on Wikipedia, please link to an example page where the problem can be observed or replicated. I had to hunt around for one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I usually include an example. But in this case, I changed the country in The Bay School of San Francisco from USA to United States. Even when viewing an old revision that had USA, the short description was still pulling from the latest revision - so I couldn't show the problem (at least not with the article where I noticed it). MB 05:35, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Further parameters

The infobox is our servant- and there are places where it is letting us down. A common task is Monitor the Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article alerts and it is here one meets Indian schools. To identify them there are three numbers that are used the Indian Certificate of Secondary Education number, the CBSE number and a government number , there is something similar in Pakistan. To try and guess new parameters seems ridiculous

We do have parameters that could be employed if we could define their label.:

  • school_number needs school_number_label
  • school_code need school_code_label

This should fix the problem !?

During the Wikipedia:The Great Britain and Ireland Destubathon, a parameter I found I needed when writing about Catholic schools in the UK was:

  • Diocese

This could also help some Church of England schools. In many ways this is a more important parameter than Local Authority, it is to do with funding not religion as such. It could be fixed if:

  • school_board had school_board_label
  • school_district had school_district_label

Is this sensible, or too preposterous!? ClemRutter (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Formatting the data columns.

I am looking for a parameter to set the column width- something like |labelstyle = width:33% in Template:Infobox. If we compare The Judd School example with The Academy, Selsey we see two different labelstyle widths. This is important as the label Department for Education URN works on a normal laptop for the Judd, being split over 2 lines, but at the Academy- it is split over 4 lines and the actual URN (which is what we are talking about) is 3 lines higher that the word URN. It is nestled along side the linkword tables. Confusing? This occurs on all UK school articles. I don't think that a labelstyle width is actually defined, and that should be an easy fix. I am not touching the source code but would appreciate if a default value was set, and a passthrough override parameter provided to be used in countries with different needs. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi ClemRutter, no fix needed here, you just need to add the {{URL}} template to the school's website and this will fix the issue. The UK infobox never used this template, but in this infobox we do. It is being done on a gradual basis Steven (Editor) (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Well it works in a lot of cases- but not Chichester High School For Girls. Whats the logic? Where's the documentation? I think I would prefer a fix that I could easily explain. Perhaps it has not been used in Infobox UK School- isn't this a good time to do properly? ClemRutter (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
ClemRutter, I had a look at Chichester, it looks ok to me? Steven (Editor) (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Well if we are seeing different things then there is problem. Try this link https://www.dropbox.com/s/70p0b8ziy47m96u/Screenshot%20from%202020-03-18%2000-28-15.png?dl=0 and look for the urn field. Is that what you are seeing? I tested on Chrome and Android and it is fine. This is on Firefox.ClemRutter (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_school/Archive_6&oldid=1189632280"