This template was considered for deletion on 2020 April 23. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

Education Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I agree that this template applies to this template (!), but the template-doubling is seriously ugly and confusing. Templates are small and it should be pretty easy to fix this, at least easier to discuss this on the Talk page first. So now I will make a first attempt to actually fix the problem. pfctdayelise 10:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry. Not sure whats going on here. Is there any way of finding out what the purpose of this ((education)) template is ? Why does it exist? What is it trying to say ?

TIA Frelke 18:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'd have to ask... ah, the anon who created it. Hmm. Well, it looks to me like it's just a navigational aid. Lots of templates are used like this, it's not very unusual - grouping related articles. See Wikipedia:Navigational templates. pfctdayelise 21:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But hey ! This template is not even listed there. I can understand the use of a template for something like Harry Potter books which are factual. But I don't think this education template is factual. Its POV. Its ((limitedgeographicscope)), which is why User:Mistress Selina Kyle changed the template. Unfortunately her changes impacted every page where the template was used, seemingly saying that the page was ((limitedgeographicscope)), when in fact it was just the template which was so. Frelke 07:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, you will have read my opinions above. I believe that it is POV. I don't believe it offers anything by way of assistance or help to a reader. I think it only confuses the issue. I don't think there is consensus on what are the formal stages of education so I don't think we should be going around suggesting that there is.

I do not have any suggestions for improoving the template. I don't think it can be improved. I suggest that I may nominate for deletion (not something I have ever done so it will be a learning experience for me - about the only educational contribution this template has made) Frelke 07:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, that is one idea. See WP:TFD#How_to_list_templates_for_deletion. Note that it says TfD may be appropriate if The template isn't NPOV (editors must demonstrate that the template cannot be modified to satisfy this requirement). Now, can it really not be de-POVed? What if the heading was changed from Stages of formal education to just Topics on education? (Obviously a lot more topics could possibly be included then). Just something to think of.

But you don't have to be certain that something must be deleted before nominating it. Nominating something for deletion is one way to draw attention to it. If other editors feel strongly for its keep, hopefully they will improve it in ways we can't even imagine. :) So I would say... why not? pfctdayelise 09:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I said I hadn't read up on this. It makes sense to require it to be improved. I just think that its a case of "If I was trying to get to there, I wouldn't start from here". To me, the template doesn't add anything except a couple of links to some articles of mediocre quality (not too bad, not excellent). Perhaps what we need is a discussion on what a template called ((education)) should contain ? Frelke 10:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I renamed this template because the contents reflected the title, not a broad coverage like the previous name implied. This title now is available for something more comprehensive. Rfrisbie^talk 03:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to suggest this layout be compressed from the two-dimensional style to a one-dimensional style. This would be similar to the style used for the main portals page to organize subpages after main pages, e.g., Education (Schools, University). An example of how the proposed layout might look follows. Rfrisbie^talk 16:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nooooo.... one reason this template worked was the original table layout made it clear how the stages related to each other (followed each other, or "sub" stages). the new layout is not as good and that's even worse. :/ pfctdayelise (translate?) 17:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Middle school be added to the list. It is identified as a distinct stage between primary and secondary education in many countries. Fishal 20:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This template keeps cropping up in all the wrong places and is very confusing. It only seems to apply to US schools as far as I can make out but seems to have been used in articles which apply to schools worldwide. In many countries kindergarten is a type of pre-school, whereas in America kindergarten seems to be part of the school system. I think too it is mostly America which has middle schools. They do exist in some parts of the UK but most children go straight from primary to secondary school. Does this template actually serve any useful purpose? Should it be deleted or should it be reserved purely for US schools? There are so many different educational stages in different countries that I don't see how one template can posssibly cover all the possibilities. Dahliarose 22:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vocational education is not necessarily tertiary, although it can be in a trade school. However, it is often secondary in a technical high school. So, perhaps the "Vocational" Link could be shown as somehow overlapping secondary and tertiary (by the way, WP:Common name, "tertiary" is usually instead called "post-secondary" no matter how confusing that sounds), rather than strictly under tertiary.

I'm tempted to suggest that "Preschool" should be "Preschool/Head Start" as synonyms, except I won't suggest it because I think that's only true in the USA. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this template is to be fixed this is the place to start. In the meantime delete all? ClemRutter (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For transgressing All-through school, K–12? PPEMES (talk) 08:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]