Talk:St. John's University School of Law

message: I'm reverting Crzrussian's edit because these are two distict categories. New York is a State, New York City is a city. The category of law schools in New York City is different from the category of law schools in New York and they contain different information. I have no idea why you got rid of the education in New York City category. --Cdogsimmons 20:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 3rd opinion shall be sought forthwith. Thank you. - CrazyRussian talk/email 20:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Crzrussian was correct in his edit. If you read Wikipedia:Categorization, general guideline 3 states that articles should not be in both a category and one of its subcategories.  It makes sense to have the article in its lowest logical subcategory - in this case, :Category:Law schools in New York City.  Since that is a subcategory of both those that Crzrussian removed, his edit should stand.  I am reverting back. --Aguerriero (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: However...I question whether a subcategory law schools in NYC is even necessary, as the state category only had about 16 articles total when the NYC schools were included, and the NYC university category is not very full either.  I don't know of any other city-specific law school categories (the NYC category's lack of a parent to that effect, such as "Law schools in the United States by city," also suggests that), and I think we're better off not segregating articles in this fashion unnecessarily.  Plus, there's that linkfarm template for NYC law schools...  So anyone have any arguments against listing :Category:Law schools in New York City on CFD?  Postdlf 20:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh :) You're just saying it cuz you went to law school in DC! :) (I don't think CFD is necessary) - CrazyRussian talk/email 21:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry that you still don't understand it, but this has been discussed ad nauseum for a couple years in every imaginable forum—putting an article in both a parent and child category is redundant.  A law school in New York City is obviously one that is also in the State of New York, because that's where NYC is located; NY within the U.S., etc.  Adding those extra categories to the article consequently provides no additional information, because it's already there by necessary implication of the subcategory.  From the perspective of the categories, if you're complaining about the fact that a NYC law school won't show up in :Category:Law schools in the United States or :Category:Law schools in New York, that's a problem solved by the inclusion of the subcategories and by list articles.  Flood categories with all articles contained by subcategories and you destroy the whole purpose of subcategorizing, making it harder to find what you're looking for, and removing any kind of organization based on the relationship and importance of the article to the category.  Flooding articles with redundant category tags also wouldn't help navigation at all.  Where would you stop?  Why not add :Category:Universities and colleges in New York City, :Category:Universities and colleges in New York, :Category:Universities and colleges in the United States, :Category:Colleges and universities, :Category:Academic institutions, :Category:Education in New York City, :Category:Education in New York, :Category:Education in the United States, :Category:Education, :Category:Law schools in New York, :Category:Law schools in the United States, :Category:Schools in the United States, :Category:Law schools, :Category:Schools, :Category:Law, :Category:New York City, :Category:New York, and :Category:United States?  Postdlf 22:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Good, I see this is pretty much settled. Postdlf is correct, we don't use redundant categorizations - there may be some other useful categories in which the article belongs. Are there categories distinguishing private and public law schools for example? bd2412 T 01:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: :Image:Sju logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Sju logo.gif

message: *If your complaint is that :Category:Law schools in New York City should not exist, than take that up at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.  As long as the category does exist it makes sense to have this article in that category and not in the parent categories.  If you want to delete a category, discuss that in the general discussion on the category, do not bring it up in the discussion for an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Law schools in the United States explicitly states it should only contain container  categories.  Thus putting this article in that category would violate explicitly stated policy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: More category discussions

message: There has been a cn tag since 2018 for having no citations at all for the ‘Clinical and externship programs’ section. If WP:RSs are not supplied for that section it should be deleted in the near future. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinical and externship programs - no [[WP:RS]]s