Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (schools)/Archive 3

message: What precisely is the problem here, other than a want for bureaucracy? If the guideline is imperfect, edit it and fix it. Note that some exceptions are quite acceptable - guidelines aren't set in stone. >Radiant< 12:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware that the guideline does not need to be perfect, however exceptions for schools which have their location names already in the schools title will make a very big difference on how this guideline is implemented and should be noted. The other concerns been raised by other users are about if this guideline should be passed the proposed stage and that the idea that a location parameter should be used in nearly all school articles should be allowed at all. Camaron1 | Chris 12:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: I can't move it back because the redirect was edited--will someone move the poor school back?  The guideline doesn't even apply to it, and it's my fault for not catching it.  I forgot to update the project page to include the provision for schools which already have the location in the name, and then Cameron asked me and I didn't catch it and I should have.  Miss Mondegreen  talk  11:24, May 29 2007 (UTC)
: Thank you for cleaning this issue up for us. I have listed the proposed moves at Wikipedia:requested moves so an admin can complete it for us. Camaron1 | Chris 11:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah, I'm sorry about that.  I had just completely forgotten to add it to the policy--when I couldn't find it there it took me a while to figure out what had happened.  Anyway, I've added a line to the first section and row to the chart to deal with this issue.  If someone wants to clean up the added text that would be great.  I've also left a general comment that should answer people's questions about this guideline and I replied to you specifically elsewhere.  Thanks for letting me know about this discussion.  I haven't been very active lately after my recent bout of WikiOgrishness. Miss Mondegreen  talk  11:55, May 29 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to make clear what this part of the policy means. The policy says: When the location of a school is in it's name, no location parameter is needed unless there are two names and a parameter is needed to clarify. I interpret that as meaning that The Petersfield School and Sheet Primary School should remain in those places without a location parameter. I am now been told that a location parameter is still needed to mark missing location information so the schools should be at The Petersfield School (Hampshire) and Sheet Primary School (Hampshire). Which is correct? Camaron1 | Chris 08:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've come to this page rather late but I agree with the comments further up this page. I see no need for every single school article to have brackets indicating the location. I think the school names should be kept as simple as possible and brackets should only be used where there are two or more schools with similar names. As far as I can establish there is only one The Petersfield School. Why complicate the name and clutter up the page by making the title longer? The location information is included in the opening paragraph and in the infobox. Similarly there is only one Sheet Primary School. The existing page barely warrants inclusion in Wikipedia but the location information is given in the opening paragraph. I suggest these school titles should stay as they are. Dahliarose 14:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. While preemptive disambiguation may be tolerated for school names since so many school names are rather generic and there is a high probability of multiple schools with the same name. There is no reason to require school articles to use parenthetical disambiguators where there is no need. older ≠ wiser 14:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that in this case we've demonstarated a need for preemptive disambiguation. Take Eton College for example, yes there is one well known school in the UK with that name, there's also one in Brittish Columbia. But when it comes down to it, ththe question is whether to do this work up front or to do it on the back end. I think what we're trying to say is that the vast majority of schools are not well-enough known that their names alone tell any reader on the planet where they are. Thus, it is essential for school article titles to be as unambiguous as possible. I think there are definitely exceptions to be made but they need to be better laid out than "The most well-known" and "where there is no need" because that is impossible to judge. Adam McCormick 03:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  I think also we need to disambiguate at the simplest level. I've therefore added The Petersfield School to the disambiguation page Petersfield. I've also added Sheet Primary School to the Sheet disambiguation page. There do seem to be other places called Petersfield but it's unlikely that there will be other schools with the same name. If there are they should go on the Petersfield disambiguation page. It should not be necessary in such instances to create for example a separate Petersfield School disambiguation page. Dahliarose 15:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Petersfield School]] 

message: I've added a parameter to my assessment template by which schools that need to be moved can be listed easily and it even includes a link to make the move a sinch. the template is  and it's the move prameter. Let me know if this would be helpful anywhere else (within the other applicable banners for instance) Adam McCormick 18:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On another, less frenzied note