Wikipedia

Talk:List of schools in Namibia

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Pgallert in topic Uncontroversial things to do here
Learn more about this page

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of schools in Namibia. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of schools in Namibia. 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:

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) 07:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of schools in Namibia. 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:

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) 05:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of schools in Namibia. 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:

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) 05:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Inclusion criteria edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago66 comments3 people in discussion

Adamant1, do you seriously intent to show up at this list every week or so, remove some entries in section A and B, remove the formatting in section O, make some references unusable that are linked elsewhere creating syntax errors, and then disappear again? How is that improving the encyclopaedia?! The inclusion criteria for this list is being a "school in Namibia". It is that easy. Editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles, see WP:LISTN. So far, the editors of this list haven't done so, and I cannot see any reason why you should come around and make that decision. --Pgallert (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think removing redlinks is okay for this list. Removing unreferenced entries where there is only a name is also okay, if it is done for the whole list, and not just for one section. Removing referenced entries that verify school name and place is, in my opinion, not okay. Another option is to split the list into regions, thereby removing all entries where the region cannot be determined. But can there be a consistent approach, please? --Pgallert (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I might be wrong but I was under the impression that there's a difference between the title of an article and inclusion criteria. Also, I was going to deal with the reference issue but unfortunately I my time has been all but taken today dealing with a couple of tantrum throwers. As far the inclusion criteria, its pretty constient and based on the guidelines. I.E. if the items in the list are discussed in independent sources as a "group" or "set" then its fine if a few aren't referenced. Otherwise, each item in the list has to be either blue linked or referenced to a independent reliable source. The guidelines are pretty clear about it. I'm pretty the "at the editors discression" thing only applies if they discussed in independent sources as a group but you don't want to include everything for some reason. Which makes sense. For instance is an independent source said there "there are 956 schools in Kenya" I don't think that automatically means we should invlude every 956 schools as red links to the list. In that case, a better criteria is needed. In this case though, its blue links, independent reliable sources, or the item is removed as not notable. A lot of the entries were referenced to either the websites of the schools or our thr government agency that runs them. Neither of which of are indpendent or even reliable in a lot of cases. So those entries were removed. There was one list, I'm not sure if it was this one, where the entries were linked to a news website, but the company was owned by the government and isn't neutral about things related to it. Which isn't OK. Adamant1 (talk) 07:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Since there's no current consensus for what should be on the list and what shouldn't, I've reverted to the last stable change before the mass edit. I think we can easily un-link red-linked schools, but removing schools which clearly fall within the inclusion criteria and re-organising the list needs to be discussed here before any other changes are made, since there's clear disagreement on the way forward with the list. SportingFlyer T·C 17:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
There's currently a discussion on WikiProject Schools about this and the other edits I have made to lists of schools. Where I have cited the guideline and well established reasons for my edits. SportingFlyer's only retort to it seems to be that my guideline based argument isn't valid because a few people disagreed with me adding speedy delete templates to a few articles yesterday. Which is just deflecting and not valid. Until there's an actually guideline and non ad hominem based reason that certain items in the lists shouldn't be I am going to assume my edits where valid. Personally, I'm perfectly fine with including some items and not including others based on what inclusion criteria we agree on. There is no precedent anywhere in Wikipedia nor is there a guideline out there saying that lists should be exhaustive and include every single possible thing no matter mundane or badly sourced, or red linked though. Which seems to be SportingFlyer's position. That the only acceptable option is every single damn thing he thinks should be or is possible to include and that my opinion isn't valid because in an argument with a few people once. In no way is that a reasonable or good faithed position. I'm perfectly willing to discuss this and come up with a good middle ground that works for everyone though. As long it's based on the guidelines and pre existing standards for lists. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Again, that's not the way it works per WP:BRD. Pgallert and I have issues with your edits. We definitely need to un-link the red links, I don't think that's controversial, but there were definitely referenced links removed with references and if we're going to revise inclusion criteria or discuss why specific schools fail WP:V that should be done here. Let's start here: which criteria were you using to remove schools that didn't match the inclusion criteria, and which criteria were you using to determine whether a source wasn't reliable? Also, I am not harassing you, and I consider your recent reversion claiming that I am a personal attack. SportingFlyer T·C 19:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
From what I understand Pgallert's issue didn't rise to level of reverting me over it though. Only yours did. Whatever BRD says, It's ridiculous for you to claim that someone asking another user a question on a talk page is grounds enough to their edit. Everyone here agrees that the red links should be delinked. The problem with you reverting me is that it just more work later delinking entries again that I already delinked. It's also working backwards from your own conclusion that the other entries you revert back will fit whatever other criteria we come up with eventually. The saner way to do this IMO is to leave the entries removed for now until we figure out what's actually worth including. It's like whoever adds the few back that can be later can't just look at the last edit where they were in the article. These discussions take enough time on their own though without having to repeat essentially the same edits later just because your revert happy and there's BLD or whatever. It's not like I vandalized the articles or added copyrighted material to them or something. As far as what criteria I was using to determine what sources were reliable, I already covered that in WikiProject Schools. Just to reiterate though, the guidelines are clear that sources have to be reliable and independent. Which would mean no government websites. This is also a special case because while a lot of the entries are referenced to New Era (Namibia), which is technically a news outlet, New Era is government owned and "Several researchers report that government ministers have acted as direct owners of the newspaper, telephoning the editorial department about articles that have criticized them." So, in no is it a reliable, independent source about things related to the government. That said, if you look at the sources for entries I left, the main one would be The Namibian. Which is perfectly fine. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Pgallert reverted your first edit here and then took it to the talk page. SportingFlyer T·C 19:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Oh yeah, that was a while back, it doesn't say "undid revision" in the edit history, and I don't remember getting a notice for it. So, I thought it was just a normal edit. There was a lot going on though. Either way, do you have anything to add or is that it? Whatever your personal gripes about my edits are, I don't think you can argue that it was at least proper to remove New Era as a reference. I don't think reverting an edit that got rid of said source was a good way to go either. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
This doesn't have anything to do with New Era. As Pgallert noted, the list's inclusion criteria is that it is a "school in Namibia." Your edits have removed random schools so far, you still haven't indicated what your new inclusion criteria is, and even assuming that New Era is unreliable for this purpose (which it probably isn't), there should still be other ways to rescue the information without deleting it. SportingFlyer T·C 22:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
What makes you think it wouldn't be reliable? Also, I'm not really sure what you mean by "my new criteria." There wasn't anything "random" about the entries I've removed. I've had the same criteria since I started editing lists, which as I've repeatedly told you is based on the guidelines, and I'm not sure how I can be any more clear about it. At this point the whole thing is really starting to be badgering. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Just to clarify a few things from my side, if you allow, sorted by how important they are to me:

  1. My main issue is not the removal of unverified entries. My issue is inconsistency. Adamant1, if you have not enough time to do it properly then please don't do it at all.
  2. I did revert Adamant1's edits. It is tagged as a manual revert. An ordinary "undo" was not possible because a bot came and repaired the syntax errors. I didn't leave a notification because to me it very much looked like a fly-by edit, so in a way I hoped Adamant1 would not come back to this page.
  3. Removing New Era articles is not okay. It is a national newspaper, and as good or bad as any other one.
  4. My preferred action for this list would be to leave all schools in. This is because school articles are a good teaser for new editors, and while whatever article might be created from this is probably not FA-material, it has the potential to get young people interested in Wikipedia.
  5. Adamant1, you are edit warring. Please desist.

--Pgallert (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Pgallert: a few things.
  1. With all do respect, it's a little hard to be consistent about something when someone is reverting your edits half way through making them and arguing about everything you do. so, that is not on me. I have been plenty consentient on list articles where that isn't occurring though and I would be on this one to if it wasn't. That said, it is not on any one editor to edit every single possible thing in an article that can be changed. I don't own the article, neither do you, and this is a collaborative project. Feel free to contribute what you feel like, but don't criticize me for my contributions. Like I said though, I would have had enough time to "be consistent" if I wasn't blocked in doing it. So, take it up with SportingFlyer. Don't revert me yourself either if your going to be critical of how much I did. Otherwise, you just look petty.
  1. I find it slightly weird that on the one hand your criticizing me for not putting the time into editing the list properly, but then you also hoped I wouldn't come back to the page. Which, while I find rather offensive you could at least get your story about it right. You can't have it both ways.
  1. Removing New Era refences is is perfectly OK. A newspaper that is owned by the government and is unable to criticize said government is in no way comparable to a private news paper that can print whatever it wants about the government. It's completely ridiculous to act like they are the same. That it is a "national" newspaper isn't relevant. I am perfectly willing to do an RfC about it and have it's use blocked as a citation for anything related to the government, which would also maybe get it completely blocked, but I rather not waste my time if I don't have to. Plus, having it completely blocked wouldn't be the greatest thing. It's really your choice though.
  1. Leaving all schools in isn't an option. Especially if the reason to is to act as a list of articles that haven't been created yet and to attract young people. Neither of those things are the purpose of lists. They help people navigate Wikipedia and find more information about the items in the list. That's it. Period. So, your going to have to meet this a little more half way.
  1. I reverted SportingFlyer twice and reverting someone twice isn't edit warring. Otherwise, he would be edit warring also. Since it's the same amount of times he reverted me. So, your simply wrong. Thanks though. Maybe read the guidelines, because I'm not going to just piss off even if that's what you prefer and this whole thing will probably go a lot better if you know how things work. People who edit Wikipedia should know the guidelines anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Adamant1: for someone as combative as you, you get remarkably many things wrong. If you remove things from this list before reaching consensus, I'll revert you on sight. I have seen now that you're not going away, so I will fight it out. Currently the consensus is not going your way, as I'm sure you'll eventually notice. Leaving all schools is an option. To be precise, it is the currently favoured option. And yes, reverting something that's not vandalism, is edit warring. If you want to try, go ahead. --Pgallert (talk) 10:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Pgallert: You were the one that made this combative by telling another user they should go away and for criticizing me for not editing every single item in the list in one go and exactly how you think I should have. Also, last I checked just because it's better to get consensus about something doesn't mean it's obligatory to. Plus, there's no rule that an article can't be edited in ways not related what is being disagreed about (or in accordance with the guidelines) while consensus is being established. The guidelines are clear that lists aren't exhaustive and it's also clear that non-notable items can be removed. In the meantime, it's not "getting consensus" or following the guidelines to badger someone into doing things your way by reverting every edit they make. Especially while you lob a bunch of ad hominem attacks at them. Which is all you and SportingFlyer are doing.
Re "Currently the consensus is not going your way", the last time I checked we all agree that the red links should be delinked. So, the consensus there is in fact solidly "going my way." When it comes to what items should or shouldn't be included in the list, my position is that it should follow the guidelines (which everyone should agree on). While SportingFlyer doesn't seem to have taken a position other then that everything I do should be reverted. Which has nothing to do with what items should or shouldn't be included. despite all his capitulating. Whereas, you've said both that your fine with the "removal of unverified entries" and also that every school should be included in the list, "to attract kids" or some such. While also saying your only problem is my "consistency." Which both contracts itself and could mean that the consensus could be going my way or might not be depending what your actual stance is. Ultimately, you haven't taken any clearer of a stance then "SportingFlyer" has. In no way is one person not taking a position and the other person taking one that contradicts themselves anything along of being a consensus about anything. Again, my way is to follow the guidelines by removing non-notable entries. Which everyone should be in agreement with.
Ultimately, While both of you seem to agree that it's cool to revert my edits and personally attack me, neither of you have provided a guideline based reason for reverting me. Nor has either of you said what you think a good alternative to would be to how I was editing the article. You even said you where fine with unverified entries being removed. Which was exactly what I was doing. R.E. "reverting something that's not vandalism is editing warring" Then I guess you and SportingFlyer were editing warring then. Since removing non-notable entries from lists isn't vandalism and you reverted my edit doing so. Good job with the own goal there. It's weird that you claim what I was doing is vandalism since you are fine with unverified entries being removed and that's all I was doing. Either your fine with vandalism or you were edit warring by reverting me. You can't have it both ways though. BTW, you never said what your preference was with New Era. Are you OK with it being removed from the article or should I do an RfC about it, which will likely lead to it being removed anyway? I rather not do the RfC if I don't have to. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Currently, both of us want the status quo, which is to have a verified list of schools in Namibia. If there are schools which aren't verified, please list them here so we can improve the quality of the list. We don't want them removed if they don't need to be removed. What we want to do is source the list better. The items don't need to be notable, and the list isn't large enough that we need to limit it to only notable items, which we firmly disagree with you on. SportingFlyer T·C 09:51, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
@SportingFlyer: "Verified" isn't the important thing here. Notability is. I have zero problem with entries being "better sourced." That's what I was trying to do by dealing with New Era and not using government cites as a reference. Which you got in the way of and had a problem with. Whatever your personal opinion is, there are a number of ways people can edit articles. No where is it implied that either I have to list an item here for "you" to improve or my edit isn't valid and can be reverted. Same goes for anyone else that wants to make edits. This isn't "your" article. That said, I don't want entries to be removed either and in no have I have just whole cloth without a well thought out, guideline based, reason removed any. I don't appreciate the insinuation that I have. As I have outlined below, there are two situations where individual list items can be included if they are not notable and from what I can tell, neither situation applies here. Not that if either situation applied it would mean the list is automatically able to be exhaustive anyway and there's still other caveats. WP:LISTCRITERIA is pretty clear on that. This isn't a black white thing like your making it out to be. I would appreciate it if you read my message below this one and concisely say which part of the guidelines that I have quoted and said apply to this that you disagree with. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Adamant1, let me take this one step at a time. By now we have touched so many things that keeping a focus is difficult. I'll start with "Notability of list entries" below; feel free to create further subsections for different topics. Thanks, Pgallert (talk) 10:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Notability of list entries edit

I'm not aware of any requirement that list entries must be notable. I don't know where Adamant1 got that from, would you be so kind to share your link? I'm referring to WP:CSC. All three options can be considered, depending on where the current discussion on the notability of schools is. But be this as it may, we can have this list if schools are notable, or if schools are not generally notable. Both options make the same list, and size of the list is not an issue, as we could split per region any time. --Pgallert (talk) 10:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

As I've said, lists are no different in most ways then "regular" content. There are some obvious, inherent, things that are at the backbone of Wikipedia that usually shouldn't have to be reiterated or discussed ad nauseum every time before someone wants to make an edit. One of those is that for things to be included in Wikipedia they have to be notable. It should go without saying that this isn't an encyclopedia of non-notable things. For lists specifically, the notability criteria is outlined in WP:LISTN and also WP:LISTCRITERIA. Which, as I've said repeatedly, is 100% what I am going off of. WP:LISTN is extremely clear that there are two notability cases when it comes to items in lists. 1. They either have to be notable by being referenced to reliable (independent) sources as a "group" or set. In which case not every single item has to be notable or blue linked, but it's still good if some are (or at least the vast majority are), because Wikipedia isn't a directory WP:NOTDIR and lists should not be indiscriminate. Plus, only certain types of lists should be exhaustive WP:LISTCRITERIA 2. The individual items in the list have to be notable by being referenced to independent reliable sources.
The only exception to those two criteria seems to be in WP:LISTCRITERIA where it says notability may be to stringent for narrower lists. This isn't a narrow list though. In the "Common selection criteria" it says it's cool to have lists with non-notable items where "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria." Not every entry in this list fails the notability criteria though. So it doesn't apply. But also only in cases where "listed items do not warrant independent articles." Which doesn't apply here either because items in the list have independent articles. So, we are left with WP:LISTN's criteria. Therefore, it's either that they are discussed as a group (which from what I can tell they aren't), or individual items have to be independently notable. Which does apply here because neither them being discussed as a group doesn't apply and neither does WP:LISTCRITERIA. So, it's really all we are left with. At least outside of personal preferences or ad hominem attacks. And that folks, is exactly what I've been saying from the start of this. BTW, there are a few small civets to the above, but I'm not totally sure they are relevant and I rather stay completely on topic anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
The topic is notable as a group or a set, and it's not an indiscriminate list. WP:CSC says one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopaedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list. There is no requirement every school be notable/blue-linked: that is a decision for editorial judgement, especially considering we can probably go up a level and split the schools out regionally if the list is too long. SportingFlyer T·C 00:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
"The topic is notable as a group or a set." Which reliable independent sources discusses the 430 schools in detail then? With your quote notice it says "common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list" While your arguing against there being criteria. So, that's not really a relevant quote. Not that if it was that "include everything" would be common sense anyway. Also, notice the same paragraph says "only certain types of lists should be exhaustive." And I'm pretty sure this isn't that "certain kind" of list. The ones covered in WP:LISTCRITERIA are. And it is pretty clear that WP:LISTCRITERIA doesn't apply here. That still doesn't mean the "Common selection criteria" aren't relevant or shouldn't be followed anyway. Cherry picking a sentence doesn't prove they aren't or shouldn't be. So, answer my question, which one of the selection criteria do you think this list applies to? I assume its the one for if they are talked about as a set or group, but then that would require sources talking about them as such. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
BTW, creating different lists is an option. I was already planning on doing it at some point, but there would still be the same problems we are having now. Having a bunch of lists that duplicate each other, where you cherry pick a sentence that doesn't apply from the notability guidelines to justify including everything, isn't going to serve anyone or be helpful. So, this still needs to be worked out either way. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Well, but lists are different from regular articles: notability requirements do not apply to the list items, only to the list topic. See WP:NLISTITEM, and WP:LISTN says the exact same thing. That means we're back to "although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." (also from WP:LISTN). So this is a may, not a must, and it still is at the editors' discretion. As we are three editors with different views we need to find a consensus. In summary:
  1. Nothing in policy forces us to remove non-notable schools from the list.
  2. We may, at our discretion, remove non-notable schools from the list.
That's why I hope for consensus-forming, not for policy-hurling. But yes, we need to clear the policy situation first. --Pgallert (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
As for my reason for opposing to remove non-notable schools from this list: (direct quote from WP:LSC)

When establishing membership criteria for a list, ask yourself if any the following are true:

  • If this person/thing/etc. weren't X, would it reduce their fame or significance?
  • Would I expect to see this person or thing on a list of X?
  • Is this person or thing a canonical example of some facet of X?
In my view the first two bullet point questions have to be answered with "yes". Particularly the second bullet closes the case for me, because if X is a school in Namibia, then why would it not be on this list?
Further, this list is currently too large for a "Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" (WP:CSC again). It is not massive (49K instead of the suggested 32K) but it is clearly larger. However, instead of cutting it down to the required size by removing content, I would favour splitting it, as there is an obvious ways to do that, i.e. per region. That would have the additional benefit that we would have to remove items where we don't even know where they are situated, and it would force new entries to have at least some location information. I did that on List of villages and settlements in Namibia a while ago, without splitting the list.
Lastly, before the "inconsistent view" argument is repeated towards me: I am not happy with every item on this list. Things like "Amazing Kids Private School" should not be in, as we don't know where that is or if it exists once, or more than once, or not at all. Such entries I would remove. But not the referenced ones, and not those where location and existence are clear. --Pgallert (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
"Well, but lists are different from regular articles." Not really and no where does the guidelines say they are. At least not in the ways that matter, like needing reliable sourcing. The guidelines actually say in several places that they are the same as normal content. Maybe that's just "policy-hurling", but it's either we do this based on policy or it's personal attacks and bickering over individual preferences. Which, isn't going to deal with this and I would think you'd be against.
"notability requirements do not apply to the list items." That's patently false. As I said before, The guidelines are crystal clear that individual list items only don't have to be notable when they are discussed as a group or when there is zero chance of any of the list items ever turning into articles. Neither of which applies here. Otherwise, yes, individual items have to be notable. Although you'd be wrong, your free to argue that the items don't need to be notable because the list is discussed as a group, or that they don't because none of the items will be articles, but you can't just whole cloth say notability for list items isn't a thing so you can get your way. Outside of WP:LISTN and WP:NLISTITEM, even WP:SOURCELIST says "all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies." One of which is notability. Citing the "discretion" thing, which is only a sentence, as a way to try and get around two guidelines and a style manual is just handwaving in the same way citing "ignore all rules exists" would be. "Let's do it my way because ignore all rules" isn't a way to reach consensus about things.
"In my view the first two bullet point questions have to be answered with yes". That's a solid no for me. It would be ridiculous to argue that some random , 1 pupil, single room school out in Podunkville nowhere would be "expected" to be on a list of schools in Namibia, or anywhere else for that matter. This isn't a list of British rock bands and we aren't talking about The Beatles. It's just not reflected in the sources either. There is no source that talks about every single school in Namibia in detail or otherwise. Otherwise, provide some evidence. If you expect something to exist, then you should be able to show it does. Also saying yes to "If this person/thing/etc. weren't X, would it reduce their fame or significance?" is just as ridiculous, because your assuming there's fame and significance to every school in Namibia in the first place that can be reduced. Which is patently false. Again, we aren't talking about British rock bands here. 99% of the schools on the planet are extremely insignificant and have no fame at all. Including ones in Namibia. It's extremely laughable to suggest otherwise.
I'll pass on responding to the paragraph about splitting the article for now. Since it's kind of putting the cart before the horse. Since we haven't even came to an agreement on this one yet. Any split articles that are created would have their own things to work out and it's a separate issue. Although, yes it is a possibility. As far as deleting the items that can't be proven to exit in a specific location, I have zero issue with that. So far it seems we at least agree on that and delinking red links. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
If we can verify your one room school was in Namibia, why would it not appear on this list? List items do not need to be notable to be on the list, that's one of the core features of lists besides navigation - to allow information to be recorded where a standalone article would be inappropriate. SportingFlyer T·C 15:52, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
I've already explained why about 50 times now and instead of you acknowledging it, and have an actual rebuttal, you just keep repeating the same question over and over like I haven't already answered it. Feel free to say why you think my reasons are wrong, but stop treating me like I haven't given them. It's not helpful at all and is borderline badgering.
R.E. your other thing, your intentionally being obtuse by saying something that overwise sounds reasonable and that everyone would agree on, but isn't relevant to this and doesn't have any basis in the guidelines. At least as far as this discussing is concerned. Just to try and force your preferred way of doing things. No one is debating that Wikipedia and lists are for information. Please stop treating me like I am and actually address what I've said and what the guidelines say. This isn't a discussion about the philosophical underpinnings of Wikipedia. It's not about "verifiability" either. It's about notability. Their completely different things. Responding by saying anything along the lines of "well, Wikipedia is for information right? So we should do this my way...." is off topic and not constructive. I've outlined pretty clearly why some individual list items shouldn't be included in this particular case. Even Pgallert agrees with me that there's some instances where they shouldn't be. At this point, we are just hashing out the grey areas. Really, at this point your completely not needed. If your going to participate though, you should either be adding something constructive to it, if your incapable of doing so you should just leave the discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
The issue is that you don't have the guideline correct. Lists do not require all of the items to be notable. I also agree there are instances where the items need to be notable, for instance Rock bands from England, but I do not agree that this is one of those lists - readers would reasonably expect to have a list of schools in Namibia, regardless of whether they have an article on the website. If I started a rock band tomorrow, it should not be on the rock bands list - but if I start a school tomorrow in Namibia, and it is verified by the government, there is no legitimate reason to exclude it. Do you want to continue arguing over this or should we start reviewing which non-bluelinked schools should not be on the list? SportingFlyer T·C 16:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
The problem is that your just saying words and giving your personal opinion, and in an extremely general way to the point of them being meaningless. Without backing them up with anything. All your doing is saying "I'm right because I say I'm right" and it's completely circular. I, or anyone else, could do exactly the same thing. For instance, I could say "certain items should be removed because certain items should be removed" and then just repeat it over and over. Which is exactly what your doing. So what though? I don't get my way because of it. Neither do you. Cool that you don't agree that not every rock band should be included in a list of rock bands. At least you agree with that. The question is, why do you think that just because you start a school tomorrow that it should be included in this list? The random school you start wouldn't automatically be included in any other similar list. So what's special about schools in Namibia, and more specifically your school, that it would be? This list as it currently exists doesn't even include every school in Namibia and in no way should it. Again, this isn't about "verifiability" it's about notability. The question isn't "does your school exist." The question is does anyone out there care that your school exists? Or more importantly, has anyone out there (who is reliable and independent) written about your school? Even the people in the Wikiproject discussion that you started agree with that. Which you seem to be ignoring in this. Likely because it doesn't fit what you want.
R.E. "readers would reasonably expect to have a list of schools in Namibia", your doing the exact same thing here that you did with "Wikipedia is for information." No one is debating that there shouldn't be a list of schools in Namibia. certainly not me. This discussion is about if individual items in the list have to be notable or not. Period. No one said has that the only instance where an item can be included is if it's a blue link either. I've been more then clear that I'm fine with including list items that are linked to reliable independent sources. That's the standard. Either an item has to have an article or it has to be reliably referenced (not just to a government website). Or else it shouldn't be in the list.
Figuring this out and making sure we are clear on things so there isn't just more edit warring and needless drama isn't arguing. Your the one that reverted me because there wasn't consensus about things when supposedly there had to be. Otherwise, this conversation wouldn't even be a thing right now and I would be editing the article. It's pretty rich that as soon Pgallert and I are starting to agree on some things, and are narrowing down what list items we should (or shouldn't) include, that suddenly the discussion is arguing and we should move on to other things. Conveniently, now that your the only one who wants to "maintain the status quo" the discussion should be over "because arguing." So things can just be done your way. Who would have guessed. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
Adamant1, I have provided statements and linked them to guidelines. What I wrote up there, "notability requirements do not apply to the list items, only to the list topic" is not patently false as you state, it is policy, and it is fundamental for all articles and lists. "The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists" is a direct quote from WP:LISTN, and I only reworded it because in my school book content has no plural.
Content of lists, just like content of articles, does not have to be notable. Notability solely applies to article topics (titles). If that were different, you would have to prove independent, reliable coverage for every article statement, and the encyclopaedia would be pretty empty.
Inside articles or lists, the criterion is verifiability. There are exceptions for that, e.g. for lists of people. These exceptions are created at the discretion of the editors and can only increase the requirements, not reduce them. Which exceptions we want to use on this list, that's ---hopefully, and at some point in the future--- what we can discuss here.
I had hoped we could at least agree on:
  1. Schools in Namibia is a notable topic.
  2. List of schools in Namibia is a viable list.
  3. The inclusion criteria for any X to be in List of schools in Namibia is that X indeed is a school in Namibia.
Does that make sense so far? --Pgallert (talk) 05:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't get the point your making. Your first quote says "notability requirements do not apply to the list items, only to the list topic" and that's cool, but then the guideline also says "'with the exception of lists which restrict inclusion to notable items'." So, notability doesn't apply to items in lists, except in cases where notability applies to items in lists. Those exceptions are given in WP:LISTN and WP:LISTCRITERIA. Which I've already outlined, stated why only one applies to this, and have yet to hear a rebuttal of. All your quote does is confirm exactly what I have been saying from the start of this. Also, notice that it says "Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." So, yes, items in lists have to be noteworthy, because they are governed by the content policies. Which again, is exactly what I have been saying. Also note that the first thing in WP:LISTN is "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists." Last time I checked, "the creation of stand-alone lists" includes the items in it. Ask yourself, can you create a list that doesn't have any items in it? For me, that's a pretty resounding no.

So, literally everything in all the guidelines you've cited say items in the list should be notable and just confirms exactly what I've been saying. Again, "whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the list is governed by the content policies." I don't see how that can be any clearer. And yes, one of the content policies is that content in articles should generally, if not always, be notable. Except for extremely rare instances that don't apply here. Which for example is exactly why there isn't larges amount of details in articles about where celebrities go to eat on the weekends. Because it might be "verifiable", but is not "notable." Why else do you think those kinds of details wouldn't be in articles? Seriously. Again, there might be extremely rare edge cases were something doesn't have to be notable to be in an article, but they don't apply to this and no where does the guidelines say they do. The idea that "requirements" (whatever that means) can only be increased and not reduced is completely ridiculous also. Let alone is it in any guideline anywhere. Your essentially saying "I'm cool if the criteria changes, but only if it's in the direction I want it to change." Which is just nonsense.

R.E. I had hoped we could at least agree on: "Schools in Namibia is a notable topic" - No one is disputing that, let alone have I, and it's not the purpose of this discussion. "List of schools in Namibia is a viable list" - Again, no one is disputing that, let alone have I, and it's not the purpose of this discussion.

(Just because list of schools in Namibia are a notable topic and this is a "viable list" it does not then automatically mean every school in Namibia is notable)

"The inclusion criteria for any X to be in List of schools in Namibia is that X indeed is a school in Namibia." - It's pretty clear that you think that. There's zero evidence that it's the case though. Nor have you provided any. The only instance where that might remotely have any chance of being the case is if the schools are talked about in reliable/independent sources as a "set" or "group as the guidelines say, and neither you or SportingFlyer have provided refences to show they are. Despite me asking both of you to several times. So, no, that inclusion criteria doesn't apply unless you can prove it does, by showing that they are discussed as a group. Just saying it does without evidence is meaningless, circular, and isn't going to move this forward. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Adamant1, I am at a loss as you how yo further explain it to you. So let me summarize once more: You have it wrong. Notability requirements do not apply to list content. Things in lists do not need to be notable. It is not the case that there are only two types of lists, one with all entries notable, and one with all entries not notable. In fact, the majority of the lists are a mix. What to do with large lists is at the discretion of the editors. You are only one editor. Your opinion is valued, and counts, but you are not the only one. --Pgallert (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Pgallert: The problem here is that you think this is about "explaining" something to me. Which isn't how this works. Conesus isn't about telling the other person what to do and then them just accepting it because you say to. It's about citing the guidelines and responding to counter arguments with actual responses, that aren't just talking in circles or making things personal. I've said several times now to provide a guideline based reason for why you think notability requirements do not apply to list content. Which you haven't done. I've cited multiple instances in the guidelines where it says they do. Which you have ignored. I've asked you multiple questions that would help clarify your position so this could be resolved. Which you haven't answered. I've said what instances I think items should be included in a list and where the guidelines agree with me. Which you've failed to have a rebuttal to or even acknowledged. For all intents and purposes, you've treated this like I've said absolutely nothing and that the point in this discussion is to tell me what to do. Like I should accept what you say without question, and then be done with it. Which again isn't how consensus works. You can either continue to be unreasonable about this, you can address my questions, acknowledge the reasons I think list items should be notable and make a counter argument that's based on the guidelines, or I'm done with the discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Pgallert: I'm pretty sick of the whole thing at this point. Since all you have you have done is deflected from answering anything I've asked you and taken cherry picked sentences out of the guidelines to try and force me to do what you want. So, can we can deal with it already? Otherwise, I'm just going to edit the article how I see fit. Since neither of you have any compelling, guideline based, reason why I shouldn't. You haven't even been consistent about anything. One message your fine with some items being removed, then your not, then you tell me we can talk about it later like it's your thing to dictate. Let's get this dealt with already dude. You can't filibuster someone editing an article by going off about how there needs to be consensus first and the refuse to reach consensus by talking in circles, just so the article can't be edited. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

But you still don't understand the difference between topic of an article and content of an article. How do you suggest I proceed? On one other point, I'm cherrypicking because you're talking about a dozen different things at once. I tried to sort this by topic, by placing subheadlines in this discussion. If you want to open something like ===Behaviour of Pgallert=== you're free to do so. In the section you read here, I'm discussing inclusion criteria. --Pgallert (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Notability of list items 2.0 edit

@Pgallert: WP:LISTN says "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." Where has the topic of the list been discussed as a set or group in independent reliable sources? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

No, the list topic is Schools in Namibia. If you want to contest its notability, AfD is thataway. The entries in this list are list items.--Pgallert (talk) 07:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
This has nothing to do with what the "list topic" is or the articles notability. Read the sentence again and answer the question. "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." The key there being that the "list items" do not need to be notable IF the topic of the list is discussed in reliable sources as a group or set. So, where has the topic of the list been discussed as a set or group in independent reliable sources?
You're arguing that List of schools in Namibia itself is not notable? Very well, please open an AfD. I'm arguing about the list items, that's something else. --Pgallert (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
For the third time this has nothing to do with the notability of the article. I've said it doesn't have anything to do with the notability of the article four times now. What's the title of the discussion dude? Notability of list items. The question I asked literally says "list items" in it. What is so hard for you to understand about that? It's pretty easy dude. This has nothing to do with the notability of the article! At this point I'm seriously thinking your the one that's trolling. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
That's what I meant with the AN comment. For the third time, LISTN says "list topic". That's not "list item". List item=entry in the list, list topic=title of the list. --Pgallert (talk) 09:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
What did you mean the AN comment? You really need to be more specific here. I don't know what your talking about. LISTN is about both the list topic and list items. They aren't mutually exclusive and it's not just about the notability of the list. A list can be notable, that doesn't mean every item in the list is though. I was talking about the part of LISTN that specifically discusses the notability of list items. Not the notability of the list as a topic. The quote "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" is directly taken from LISTN and is clearly about the notability, or lack thereof, of list items. It's saying if the items are notable as a set then they don't have to be individually notable. So, how does that not have to do with the notability of list items? What does that have to do with the notability of the article like your claiming it does? Nowhere in that sentence is the notability of the article brought up. Nor does it say "list topic" anywhere. It's not at all useful to define terms that we aren't discussing and there is no disagreement about. Let alone to treat LISTN like it's about a single thing when it isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

New Era as a source for this list edit

New Era is one of four daily newspapers. It is owned by government. How independent the newspaper is from government is disputed. Adamant1, you quote above from the Wikipedia article that ministers phone the newspaper offices with the intention of having newspaper content changed. That is well documented. Whether they succeed or not is unknown, and you omitted the statement Swedish researchers found New Era to be "more critical and fierce" than The Namibian.

Be that as it may, reliability never is total, and neither is independence. Using New Era to document the popularity of SWAPO would not be okay. Using New Era to argue for the effectiveness of governance might, or might not, be okay. The important thing is the context. To remove New Era references in general is unlikely to succeed—if you want to go ahead with an RfC, this is a reasonably free 'pedia, and I can't stop you.

For schools, their size, location and date of establishment, New Era sources in my view are no problem. Even though most schools are governmental and New Era is dependent on government, they have no conceivable advantage by faking the name of a school or its location and basic data. New Era has as much of a 'reputation of fact checking and accuracy' as any other Namibian newspaper, only where they could have a conflict of interest should we be careful. --Pgallert (talk) 06:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

"To remove New Era references in general is unlikely to succeed" - I did an RfC about it and the consensus there seems to be that it should be treated like every other government owned news outlet is on Wikipedia. Which means it can be used if it supplemented with an independent reliable source. Otherwise if it can't be, it should be removed. So, yes, removing it does indeed succeed. Really, I shouldn't have needed to do an RfC about it. New Era can be no problem in your opinion, and I agree they aren't. But only if/when they are supplemented with an independent reliable source. Ultimately, schools are ran by the government and those are exactly the kind of things that there be a conflict of interest about. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

BTW, it appears that New Era changed their URL or something and that as a result all the links to it are dead now anyway. Who knows what the new URLs are. If there even is any. Which I before I did the RfC, but I wanted to prove a point and set a precedence. That you were arguing for, plus both you and @SportingFlyer: were reverting me based on, the keeping of dead links just goes to shows how ridiculous and bad faithed this whole thing is. Especially on the part of SportingFlyer. Like it wasn't obvious enough already though. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Not all of the links to it are dead, and the ones that are appear to be from before about 2014 and are available on allafrica.com. I've updated a couple of the URLs. It's very easy to do. SportingFlyer T·C 23:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Not when someone says you have to either have them approve any edits or they will revert you. Not that I was obligated to replace them anyway though. So, it's cool to say that after the fact. Really, you and Pgallert could have just as easily replaced them before you made a fat issue out of it and really you should have instead of turning the whole thing into one. Nice to know I have your approval now though. Like I needed it. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
What are you even talking about? No one would revert you for updating URLs from dead links to active ones. The only reason you were reverted is because you were removing chunks of the list en masse, some of those removals were clearly sourced, and other removed schools without direct inline citations were easily verifiable through other links in the article, meaning we had to discuss whether it was proper to winnow the list criteria down. SportingFlyer T·C 00:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yeah well, except your being obtuse about it, because dead URLs that can't be replaced are deleted. Also, in this case it can be removed if no alternative is found anyway, because it isn't a reliable refence. So, it's not just about "updating" them.

R.E. "The only reason you were reverted is because you were removing chunks of the list en masse." That's clearly wrong. Pgallert was very clear that "Removing New Era articles is not okay" and he also said "If you remove things from this list before reaching consensus, I'll revert you on sight." Which I assume "things" would include references. Also, you said "Pgallert and I have issues with your edits." I'd assume "my edits" aren't just confined to removing list items and that it also including updating URLs or getting rid of them if no alternative can be found. Going by what Pgallert said, I'm sure they would have had a problem with me replacing them with better sources also. Otherwise, you, and Pgallert, should have been clearly about it. Not that either of dictate that kind of thing anyway though. There doesn't need to be a "consensus" to update or remove dead/unreliable URLs. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

<squeeze>There absolutely needs to be consensus before removing dead urls. Updating urls, as SportingFlyer has done yesterday, is uncontroversial, tagging urls as dead is uncontroversial.--Pgallert (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Pgallert: Wrong. No where does WP:DEADREF say there needs to be consensus before removing a dead reference. You can't use "consensus" as an excuse for article ownership. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Adamant1:Indeed, but it also says that you should check if it is available elsewhere. And it says: "editors should wait ~24 months after the link is first tagged as dead before declaring that no web archive exists." I read that as 1) first tag it as dead, and 2) if you find a source that has been dead for years, remove the url. Wrong again? --Pgallert (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Naaww, your partially correct now. Your original statement wasn't though. That said, it was like 40 dead references. Which is like half of the references in the article. I'm pretty sure the guidelines don't expect someone individually tag 40 references from the same site with the "dead refence" thing and then wait 2 years for them to replaced. As your then going for 2 years with a half dead referenced article. Which isn't really functional. Anyway, you can just go by the "Retrieved" date, which in this case has been like 8 years, and tell from it that the criteria for why we should wait 2 years, due to archiving or whatever after the site dies, has already been met. If they had of died like a month ago sure, wait the two years (although not if it's like half the references on the page though), but the site has already been down for a while from what I could tell. Like I said, your not going to add "dead link" to all 40 refences anyway. Just replace or if you can't delete them and move on at that point. In this case SportingFlyer replaced like two of them, called it quits, and left like 35 without even adding "dead reference" to them, and according to the both of you I can't edit the article or I'll be reverted. So, how is that or "your" way of doing things (leaving dead references without even tagging them as such) helpful at all? If you think my way of doing things isn't good, at least you could have an alternative. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
So, minor update. I asked for clarification on list items just to be sure since originally he only said "articles" and I thought it needed be clarified. He said it was fine to use it to "fill in the gaps." Because there isn't 100% clear examples of them being bias. At least not we have. Which I have zero problem with. Better references should still be used they can be though. Direct government sites should still be removed Also. Plus I'd delete the dead links that can't be replaced. And items that don't have reliable references or blue links should still be gotten rid of. Which can be dealt with in the other discussion since it still hasn't been ironed out. At least we got this out of the way though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Not sure what you intend to say here, would you mind to clarify? Thanks, Pgallert (talk) 06:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Oh, and finally, would you please have the courtesy to link to the RfC, Adamant1? I have trouble finding it. Thanks, Pgallert (talk) 06:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Looks like you found it. What do I need to clarify? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
That's not an RfC, just a message to a noticeboard. --Pgallert (talk) 05:47, 4 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Maybe it wasn't an informal RfC, usually what people say there about references is the thing to follow. Especially if Buidhe is the one saying it. It's weird how so far nothing except your personal opinion is valid though. The guidelines don't count, what people say on a message doesn't count Etc. Etc. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Adamant1 is continuing to misconstrue the guidelines and is currently removing non-notable entries from other African school lists such as List of schools in Zimbabwe, even though there's no issue with having those entries in the list. I'm really at a loss as to how to deal with this. SportingFlyer T·C 23:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
The simple way to deal with it would have been to point out where I'm wrong in a clear manor without all the personal attacks and other stuff that wasn't neccessary. Both of you failed to do that though. I said I was making the edits, your only rubtle was "do it my way because I say so." Both of you seem more concernced with causing me personal problems then working it though. So, I continue until a clear guideline based arguement has been made to why I shouldn't. I suggested an RfC. Which you both ignored. I cited guidelines. Which you both ignored.I asked you question. Which, again, you both ignored..So...BTW, I'll mention on List of schools in Zimbabwe in particular that Moonythedwarf had removed a bunch of non-notable entries a few days ago. So the conensus there seems to be that they should be removed. I was just helping them out. So, really, you should take it up with them. I find it wierd that taking issue with my edits to the article in particular. When its nothing particular to me. Especially on the talk page of a different article. I guess that's just how you role though. Clearly this a personal thing more then anything else. Adamant1 (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
BTW, there was also an edit by Jessicapierce to the article a few months ago that removed a lot of non-notable entries to. So, feel free to take it up with them also. Oh, yeah and Ajf773. Who removed a bunch a month before that Etc. Etc. How about [][List of universities in Algeria]]? I didn't edit that one. Lichtt did though and removed a bunch of non-notable item. Weirdly there hasn't a been a peep out of you or anyone else about it. Same for List of schools in Botswana. Where the last editor deleted a non-notable entry. No revert there either. List of schools in Egypt I didn't remove anything from. The editor before my edit, Premeditated Chaos, did though. Where's the outrage and reverts there? Oh, there isn't any. What about List of schools in Ghana? The editor, Dl2000, removed a couple of non-notable entries. Anything from you about? Nope. List of Schools in Kenya, the last edit before mine removed a bunch of non-notable entries. Nothing from you there either. List of schools in Liberia? The last edit, not by me, removed a non-notable entry. Nothing from you there either Etc. Etc. Etc. I don't feel the need to go on. Two things are clear here though 1. It's pretty un-controversial and clearly the established way of doing things to remove non-notable entries from these lists 2. You don't really seem to have a problem with it literally at all. Except for some weird reason when I'm the one doing it. Yet, at the same time you've said this whole is just "good faithed" and your part and that you aren't specifically targeting me or my edits. Adamant1 (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
Sighhh... again, the issue isn't you removing individual list items, it's removing so many list items that the format of the list changes from "List of schools" (which is a valid list) to "List of notable schools." You're taking a hatchet to these lists without justification. That is the issue. SportingFlyer T·C 12:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
I told you I'm doing it based on the guideline and the fact that other editors, including admins, remove un-reliably sourced items. That it's "without justification" is purely your own reading of things. As is the "taking a hatchet to the lists" is. That's not the appropriate way to look at removing un-sourced material from articles. It's just normal part of maintenance and there's nothing controversial about it. The point in Wikipedia isn't to "include everything under the sun" no matter how badly or un-sourced it is. At least you created the RfC. Even if you were a little dishonest about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply
BTW, when I said to do an RfC about it I assumed it would be somewhere else besides the school Wikiproject. Since they have an extremely small audience, tend to lean toward inclusion already, and people are mixed on how authoritative Wikiprojects are anyway. If just you, me, Pgallert, and one other person participates that's not really helpful. There's way more people that have already been editing the lists the way I am and I'm perfectly fine considering their edits the consensus if no better one materializes in the RfC or if it isn't balanced. Hopefully more people participate in the meantime though.

Adamant1 (talk) 09:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Uncontroversial things to do here edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I do hope I'm not creating a new controversy here. It seems we have been discussing with an energy that could have tremendously improved this list instead. The following tasks for this list seem to be entirely uncontroversial, and can be done for now (Please interject if I misread someone or something):

  1. Removing red links from schools
  2. Removing schools from the list that have no ref and no article and no indication where they are located (as in remove: Amazing Kids Private School, don't remove for now: Amazing Kids Private School Otjiwarongo)
  3. Saving refs by repairing link rot
  4. Tagging references as "dead"
  5. Removing dead urls with a tag 2018 or older

I'll start with #3 and #4. --Pgallert (talk) 09:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_schools_in_Namibia&oldid=1206655451"