Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (schools)/Archive 7

message: It has been a while but I have been bold and switched the tag to historical on this proposal; mostly because I think it is more accurate of the current situation. This proposal has ceased to continue mostly because it has become inactive with a shortage of participants - the current version was never really fully rejected by the community as a whole. Camaron1 | Chris 18:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The hsitoric tag pertains to pages which were accepted into use and then became obsolete.  Not appropriate for this case.  There is discussion of changing the name of the tag to "failed" as sounding less harsh than "rejected"; however, this is the appropriate tag. --Kevin Murray 18:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  An older version of this page did actually have accepted status for quite a while, though lack of community discussion on the guideline before marking it as accepted caused controversy, hence the guideline was heavily changed into the current version and the proposed tag was put on instead. I still think "rejected" is misleading, but since it is not that important, I am willing to accept the current tag. Camaron1 | Chris 18:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps the appropriate move would be to reinstate that which had been accepted and mark that as historical.  --Kevin Murray 19:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is working out what has been accepted and what hasn't. The version of this page which was marked as accepted at one point if retrieved in the history for its own page, was heavily rejected eventually - read the archives of this talk page and you will see what I mean. The  is probably best in these cases - like with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (schools)/Archive 1. Camaron1 | Chris 19:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see your point.  I'd say leave it be then. --Kevin Murray 21:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I never said there was any "shame in rejection", only that the current tag is misleading. I am also very confused on why this page must have the rejected tag, yet this page which is in a similar position has been marked by you as historical as a compromise tag? I thought there was no compromises due to policy? Camaron1 | Chris 09:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the No consensus tag was a much better reflection of the current status of this proposal. It has never been rejected. We were working towards a consensus but were frustrated by the lack of input from editors from many of the countries involved and also by the lack of any clear policy at a higher level on Wikipedia on the issue of commas versus parentheses for buildings. I suggest we restore the no consensus tag. Dahliarose 13:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, I do not understand what the problem is with using a more accurate tag, I think putting a no-consensus tag is justified per WP:IAR. Even ignoring that, WP:POLICY is not clear on the issue; there is nothing that says you can not use alternative tags, it only explains what a historical and rejected proposal is supposed be, and does not clarify much on these kind of situations. Camaron1 | Chris 14:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The old proposal has now been archived and has been marked with a superseded tag, I hope that solves the issue. Camaron1 | Chris 16:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current tag

message: The following is taken from the policy page:
*A historical page includes any process which is no longer in use, or any non-recent log of any process. Historical pages can be revived by advertising them.
*A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus for acceptance is not present after a reasonable time period, for which consensus is unclear after a reasonable time period for discussion regardless of whether there is active discussion or not, or where discussion has substantially died out without reaching consensus.  Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. It is considered bad form to hide this fact, e.g. by removing the tag. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a rejected proposal from scratch and start in a different direction.
With consensus absent or neutral and not likely to improve this fits the rejected category.  As it was never in use, it it not historical.  There are no other tags specified at the policy pages, although people have made-up tags such as described above, these have not been accepted.  Without reviewing the example in depth at this page, it appears to be using the wrong tag for the same reasons.  There was discussion lately, which I supported, to come up with some different tags, but these did not receive support. --Kevin Murray 15:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The old proposal has now been archived and has been marked with a superseded tag, I hope that solves the issue. Camaron1 | Chris 16:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy

message: I have decided to be bold and put this guideline back onto the proposal list. We were close, in my opinion, to having an accepted guideline - the main reason the previous proposal failed was simply because the talk page became inactive. I have put together a new proposal based on the previous one, both the old proposal and old talk page have now been archived. I also think we might get somewhere quicker if we keep the guideline reasonably simple and basic - the one before was getting a little complicated, with a few sections that were controversial. This new one is a lot simpler, though it will still need some further cleaning. To get some community attention I will inform the Village Pump and some WikiProjects. A NC guideline for schools is despretley needed and I am not giving up quite yet. Camaron1 | Chris 16:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This gudeline, in general seems to reasonably sum up the state of consensun on the old guideline. I would suggest that we change the line about unique name to only include similarly named school articles. This was a big point of contention last time, and I don't think anyone disagreed that two articles with the same name shouldn't be disambiguated. Adam McCormick 19:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have done that now, all pre-emptive naming has been removed for now, as that was the biggest area of controversy last time round. Camaron1 | Chris 20:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New proposal

message: There are certainly exceptions like River Axe, Devon, but if you look at :Category:Rivers of California, for example, you'll see just parenthetical disambiguation, like is used with most topics, per WP:DISAMBIGUATION. The only subject that uses a comma after the actual name, that I am aware of, is populated places, such as :Category:Cities in Switzerland. I would argue that unless consensus is reached to make schools an exception, parenthetical disambiguation should be used per WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Commas that are part of the most common name of the school, should, of course, be left as commas, per WP:NC. Ravenna1961 07:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that there is no de facto standard for rivers, buildings, etc, where the place name is used to disambiguate. Lots of churches and other buildings use the comma, but just as many don't. See Cathedral of Saint Paul as an example. Unless some overall consensus can be reached throughout Wikipedia on the treatment of all such articles I don't see how it is possible to reach a consensus for schools. Dahliarose 08:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. ~ Scribble Monkey 09:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There may be no defacto standard, but Parenthetical disambiguation is much closer to being standard than commas Adam McCormick 21:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Parentheses are the standard for describing what something is (ie, a book, film, planet, song, etc). Commas are used to disambiguate all place names. See: Paris (disambiguation) as an example. There is no de facto standard whatsoever where the place name is used as the disambiguator so there is a complete muddle across Wikipedia, eg, St. Peter's Church and of course all the conflicting formats in our school articles. I've tried raising the subject in various places in the past but have had no responses. Dahliarose 15:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe there is indeed a de facto standard for schools, see :Category:High schools in Washington for example, and non-parenthetical disambiguation is just plain incorrect per WP:DISAMBIGUATION, just like every other topic except populated places. And again, to make schools an exception to WP:DISAMBIGUATION would require discussion and consensus. Following existing guidelines by using parenthetical disambiguation requires no further discussion. Ravenna1961 (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The vast majority of American schools do indeed use the parenthesis system but the same does not apply to other countries. India uses mostly commas, and WikiProject Western Australia uses commas for everything with place names. English churches all use commas and so do a lot of schools. Dahliarose (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That brings up on to the reason why WP:NC(USS) is been proposed, brackets are generally standard for schools in the US, so this proposal will achieve less if accepted but will avoid the brackets v. comma debate. Camaron1 | Chris 14:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The de facto standard for everything but populated places is "name (location[, location])"

message: * "Parentheses should not 100% replace commas as the way of disambiguating articles, many people and WikiProjects prefer commas."
====Discussion====
What is believed to be the current standard at WIkipedia:Disambiguation, comma or parenthesis? (I'm not saying we have to follow it, but it gives a nice starting point.) - jc37 19:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In every other type of disambiguation besides places (from my understanding) there seems to be consensus for Parentheses (and the guideline seems to support this). But for Architecture, it seems to be that commas are used. There are also a few enclaves (Perth and Western Australia come to mind) where they insist on using commas and challenging any guideline to the contrary. Adam McCormick (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  One 

message: What is believed to be the current standard at WIkipedia:Disambiguation, comma or parenthesis? (I'm not saying we have to follow it, but it gives a nice starting point.) - jc37 19:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In every other type of disambiguation besides places (from my understanding) there seems to be consensus for Parentheses (and the guideline seems to support this). But for Architecture, it seems to be that commas are used. There are also a few enclaves (Perth and Western Australia come to mind) where they insist on using commas and challenging any guideline to the contrary. Adam McCormick (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: * "There is not full agreement for the disambiguation formats listed for each country."
====Discussion====
Which countries do appear to have consensus? Is it necessary to have most or all in place in order for there to be a clear system? - jc37 19:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Up until a few weeks ago, the US was settled but is now disputed. There is some dispute about all of them. Adam McCormick (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two 

message: Which countries do appear to have consensus? Is it necessary to have most or all in place in order for there to be a clear system? - jc37 19:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Up until a few weeks ago, the US was settled but is now disputed. There is some dispute about all of them. Adam McCormick (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: * "No pre-emptive disambiguation is proposed in the current version of this guideline, some should be included."
====Discussion====
Can you explain what is meant by "pre-emptive"? - jc37 19:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My responce to the same question earlier: I didn't at one stage know what it meant either - though fortunately another project provides the answer . It means disambiguating pages (such as adding the location in brackets to the article title) to avoid a article naming conflict on Wikipedia which has not yet occurred, but could happen in the future. Pre-emptive disambiguation can vary from disambiguating all school articles to just a few where a naming conflict looks very likely to occur. Camaron1 | Chris 20:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there examples of such, or are these phantasmic concerns? (Which could be dealt with later should such situations come up.) - jc37 20:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They can all be dealt with later when the situations arise, and I think that is the best solution for now. However, the concerns still exists as shown by recent comments on the straw poll at WT:NC(USS). Camaron1 | Chris 21:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  There are specific guidelines against such and, in general, hasn't been the issue Adam McCormick (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three 

message: Can you explain what is meant by "pre-emptive"? - jc37 19:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My responce to the same question earlier: I didn't at one stage know what it meant either - though fortunately another project provides the answer . It means disambiguating pages (such as adding the location in brackets to the article title) to avoid a article naming conflict on Wikipedia which has not yet occurred, but could happen in the future. Pre-emptive disambiguation can vary from disambiguating all school articles to just a few where a naming conflict looks very likely to occur. Camaron1 | Chris 20:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there examples of such, or are these phantasmic concerns? (Which could be dealt with later should such situations come up.) - jc37 20:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They can all be dealt with later when the situations arise, and I think that is the best solution for now. However, the concerns still exists as shown by recent comments on the straw poll at WT:NC(USS). Camaron1 | Chris 21:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  There are specific guidelines against such and, in general, hasn't been the issue Adam McCormick (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: * "Not necessary, WP:NC and WP:DISAMBIGUATION should cover this."
====Discussion====
As far as I'm concerned, this statement is DOA in regards to this discussion. While Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) indicates that specificity in naming is a good thing. We should lean on those other pages for support, obviously, but having this one would seem to be necessary. (And it's not as if having topical naming conventions is unprecedented.) - jc37 19:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the perspectives of those of us working with Schools and little else it is necessary. There is too much confusion over which of the manyfold guidelines otherwise applies. Adam McCormick (talk) 07:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four 

message: As far as I'm concerned, this statement is DOA in regards to this discussion. While Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) indicates that specificity in naming is a good thing. We should lean on those other pages for support, obviously, but having this one would seem to be necessary. (And it's not as if having topical naming conventions is unprecedented.) - jc37 19:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the perspectives of those of us working with Schools and little else it is necessary. There is too much confusion over which of the manyfold guidelines otherwise applies. Adam McCormick (talk) 07:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: *There are also concerns that there has been insufficient input to enable the guideline to be implemented even if agreement is reached. There have only been around five people involved in the discussions with input only from people in the US/UK.
====Discussion====
Considering that this has been listed at Template:Cent for a rather long time, and it's posted in quite a few noticeable places, I think that concerns of community inclusion are unfounded. If someone wished to comment, they would have by now. At this point, consider yourselves a committee of sorts. Once there is consensus of a version that you (and any other commenters) feel is stable enough to go forward, then it can be labelled a guideline, and editing continues. - jc37 19:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The biggest issue seems to be that as soon as anyone who usually uses something different to disambiguate arrives they take issue with the small group which has been willing to hack these out. It always seems to dissolve into five people coming to an agreement and one who is unhappy. Adam McCormick (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five 

message: Considering that this has been listed at Template:Cent for a rather long time, and it's posted in quite a few noticeable places, I think that concerns of community inclusion are unfounded. If someone wished to comment, they would have by now. At this point, consider yourselves a committee of sorts. Once there is consensus of a version that you (and any other commenters) feel is stable enough to go forward, then it can be labelled a guideline, and editing continues. - jc37 19:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The biggest issue seems to be that as soon as anyone who usually uses something different to disambiguate arrives they take issue with the small group which has been willing to hack these out. It always seems to dissolve into five people coming to an agreement and one who is unhappy. Adam McCormick (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I've tried to keep the Oregon school articles to the naming conventions here. Last time I checked it went like this: If a U.S. high school needed disambiguation and it had the same name as the place it was located, you only had to put the state. If the name needed disambiguation and it wasn't named after its location, you put the city and state. Now I see that someone has moved Ashland High School (Oregon) to Ashland High School (Ashland, Oregon) citing this page (note the high school is located in Ashland). Has the naming convention changed again? How tedious. Does someone here run a bot that can change the rest of the Oregon articles and links to them? Or is this a misunderstanding of the convention. Thanks. Katr67 (talk) 07:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: These guidelines are a bit up in the air just now. Generally redundancy is a bad thing unless there are more than one school of the same name in different cities in the same state. Adam McCormick (talk) 08:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A new editor decided to move a whole load of school articles without understanding that this guideline is not policy and also without even understanding what had been discussed and agreed. We had pretty much agreed that repetition was unnecessary so it might be best to move this school article back to its old page name. Fortunately the user now seems to have stopped moving pages around so not too many schools have been affected. I've moved all the English schools back to their original names. Dahliarose (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 09:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Great, thanks, I think so far there are only two Oregon ones affected so I'll see about moving them back for now. I all really care about is that they are consistent one way or the other. Good luck hashing out the guideline. If I were to !vote, I'd agree the redundancy is bad. Katr67 (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now what? 

message: This is specifically in reference to changes being made on the California School District List List of school districts in California.
All Elementary districts do not have the word "Elementary" in their name. The same goes for several other words that editors seem to want to add to this listing. I have checked into each district's website-- "annotated links on edit page, hidden". Even going so far as to check on downloads of PDFs of Board Minutes and the like, to make sure the name that is listed here is the name that is USED by that Califonia district.
I find that greatschools.net added the word "Elementary" to all districts names that are only Elementary districts. Districts, however, seem to go by one or the other, so I am now working through the list going to each individual Elementary district to see what NAME THEY ACTUALLY USE, which is what I will leave on this list. In a few cases the word "City", has also been appended, so I will eventually check every one of them.DavidPickett (talk) 03:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the talk page of a proposal which has been dead for a while, and is hence watched by few people. I would suggest posting at WT:WPSCH which gets more traffic. CT Cooper · talk 18:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: District Names