Talk:List of choir schools

Schools Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort 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.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

School websites[edit]

For most schools there is an entry in Wiki (or shortly will be judging by the redlinks) which contains any links to external websites. However I notice that there six schools which don't have a Wiki page but do have a link to an external website. The problem is that there are three types of referencing in use for six schools:

A parenthesised URL
A bracketed URL
A citation

The first two methods keep the URLs alongside the entries in the list, the third form leads to chasing up and down the page. In particular, having three references all labelled "school website" is a little confusing for the reader (remember WP:RF). Option 1 sets the URL off nicely, but leaves a bare URL which is ugly. Option 2 enables the use of "Official website", but runs on with the text.

I'm going to be WP:BOLD and adopt the following: Parenthesise the URL, but use the bracket form and name it "school website" to make it clear to the reader what the link refers to. If anyone disagrees, can we discuss it here and seek consensus before reverting my changes please. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to use the normal referencing standards. Otherwise, having school websites listed for only the red entries looks a bit like advertising. Deb (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, and in part agree. However most school pages also include a link to the school's web site so there is no undue bias. Lists generally do not need citations, they ought to point to the Wiki pages which should be fully cited - if not the problem is there. The problem specifically is with the schools added without a page. The best solution is of course to write a page if they meet WP:NOTABLE, and remove them otherwise. Incidentally, it was the "black links", not the redlinks that I was looking at. If you want to revert to your original idea feel free to do so, but I would suggest that:

All the school website URLs should be treated the same.
A list of URLs all labelled "school website" doesn't help the reader. If you want to move them to the bottom you need to use something like:

 * Pacific Boychoir Academy  ([http://www.pacificboychoir.org Pacific Boychoir Academy school website])

not simply

 * Pacific Boychoir Academy  ([http://www.pacificboychoir.org school website])

The key thing though is that all sites are treated the same on any particular list. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree they should be properly titled. I should have done that first time around. Many would disagree with you that lists don't need references. I tend to take the view that red links should be referenced, if only to show that they aren't invented names - the school website would be adequate for this. The way they are now does make them look a bit like spam links in my opinion. Deb (talk) 10:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of choir schools. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131214052210/http://www.reigatestmarys.org/stmaryshomeintroduction to http://www.reigatestmarys.org/stmaryshomeintroduction

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]