Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (schools)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Request for Comment

An RfC has been posted to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies. ⇒ BRossow T/C 03:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Full name?

Disclaimer: I am here because this page was cited during a move from Stanford University to Leland Stanford Junior University.

This "guideline" cites as its rationale a sidetracked discussion from November 2005 that included a straw poll over parentheses. Yet the very first sentence, "school article titles should use the full official name of the school as provided by the school itself", is in direct conflict with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and the bolded box at the very top of Wikipedia:Naming conventions. This page provides no reasoning for the departure.

I will edit the page to defer to existing naming conventions. Melchoir 02:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your change, but I have a question: what exactly is being proposed? You added the propose template, but are you proposing it become a policy? A guideline (even though it already is)?Jesuschex 02:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Ah. Sorry, I was looking for a better template... my point in adding it is to point out that this page shouldn't even call itself a guideline, since there is no consensus on its contents. Heck, before today its talk page was blank. So by "proposed" I mean "proposed guideline", not "proposed policy". Does that answer your question? Melchoir 02:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've been reverted. Brossow, could you please try to think a little more critically? This page was not handed down by Jimbo; it was split from Wikipedia:Schools (which has since been rejected), and it has received no consensus. It might someday be a guideline, but it isn't yet, and there is no reason not to change it based on discussion at this talk page. More critically, it is improper to cite this page as an excuse for bypassing normal consensus-based processes like Wikipedia:Requested moves and {{move}}. Melchoir 02:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC) Speaking of which... Melchoir 02:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You may disagree, but DO NOT drastically change existing guideline pages without clear consensus. I have reverted your changes except for the {{Proposed}} tag. Please do not change it again without adequate discussion here first. Having said that, a clear guideline is needed for school names that differs from other articles. Where actor Don Knotts may not be well known by his "official" name, Jesse Donald Knotts, there is little dispute as to what name he went by. But with schools and universities this is not the case and the most logical standard, the easiest resolution, therefore, is to use the full official name. Otherwise an endless series of page moves could be considered legitimate if one person considers one name "most common" and another person considers a different name the most common instead. "Simon's Rock!" "No, Simon's Rock College!" "No, just the Rock!" So we make the guidelines clear: official name of the school only and leave anything else as a redirect. Nothing is lost, no links are broken, no confusion arises, but there is no need for disagreement over the "real" article title. Where's the problem in presenting the article as the school is officially known, given that redirects from other names will bring readers there from less formal queries? ⇒ BRossow T/C 02:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
And for the record, it WAS listed as a guideline until you changed it. See also WP:BOLD. ⇒ BRossow T/C 02:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it was listed as a guideline, and that was absolutely wrong. This page has never been challenged before; it has barely even been discussed. It gives no reason for overruling existing policy. Melchoir 03:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
As for the substance: are you advocating throwing out Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) entirely? If not, how are schools different from any other article covered by that convention? Melchoir 03:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I believe I just explained that. I won't repeat myself. ⇒ BRossow T/C 03:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
To pretty much repeat Melchoir, what makes schools different from other topics? Your whole argument is trumped by WP:NC(CN), and you fail to show how schools are any different from other topics and need the full official name given by the school. Before your changes to school article titles, those schools went by the same standard as everything else: use the common name for the title, and use the full complete official name in the article itself. For example, Bill Clinton's article is at Bill Clinton, yet the article states his name as William Jefferson "Bill" Clinton. Why can't schools use the same guideline? Jesuschex 03:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Rather than repeating myself (please read my comments above before asking again) I'll ask a question instead: where's the harm in using the name that the school itself uses as its official name? Seems like common sense to me. ⇒ BRossow T/C 03:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
If you're referring to the sentence, "But with schools and universities, the most logical standard is to use the full official name", that's just a restatement of your position; it's doesn't contain any reasoning about schools. Melchoir 03:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Let me spell it out for you: schools may go by MANY "common" names. Brigham Young, BYU, Brigham Young University. All pretty common, right? So which one does the school's article use? How do we decide? We look to a guideline — say, for example, a guideline that directs the naming conventions for school articles — to learn that the most accurate, most logical, and most consistent way of naming school articles is to use the name that the school itself puts on the diploma, the most basically important place in which a school identifies itself. Why are schools different? Because unlike most other subjects, they may be known by MANY different names. Choosing the primary article title, therefore, should and, I believe, MUST be determined by a policy that is consistent across the board. The only reliable way to achieve said consistency is to use the "official" name that the school itself uses. The easiest place to find the official name of any school is to look at the diplomas it distributes. My proposal would be that "diploma name" trumps everything else and, if a diploma is not available, we look to other means to decide, but it shouldn't be left to arguing individuals to define "most common." ⇒ BRossow T/C 03:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
So, your response to our argument of "why" is "why not?" Other than that, we have your argument that it's logical: "But with schools and universities, the most logical standard is to use the full official name," and your argument that it's common sense: "Seems like common sense to me." You fail to show why it's logical, why it's common sense, and why school titles should be the full official name of the school. Jesuschex 03:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Read for content. I've spelled it out twice before, and now three times: it avoids conflict and provides consistency. Simple enough for you? ⇒ BRossow T/C 03:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

(rewrap) You say multiple common names make it harder to choose the most common? I disagree on several levels. First, it's not that hard. Let's take the example of BYU; "BYU" is an acronym and thus forbidden; "Brigham Young" is the name of a person; "Brigham Young University" is unambiguous, common, and conforms with the practice of including the word "University" in University articles. How about Stanford: "SU" is forbidden, "Leland X" is uncommon, and "Stanford" doesn't include "University", so we choose "Stanford University". You will notice that (barring April Fools and your own actions in the name of principle) neither of these article's talk pages have any discussion of the correct name. Because they're obvious.

Second, people can also have lots of common names, including middle names or not, initials, nicknames, and even name changes. Among such articles, I am not aware of a correlation between number of names and difficulty of decision. Prince (artist) has had lots of names, but you don't see move discussions on that page. Meanwhile, Cat Stevens has just two common names, which managed to spark the worst page move debate in my memory.

Finally, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) spells out a number of reasons to create an exceptional rule: technical difficulties, precision, disambiguation, responses to conflicts, obviousness, regional bias, acronyms, abbreviations, grouping by topic, and personal names likely to change. Nowhere is it suggested that one should give up on the principle of using commons names simply because there are several common names to choose from. The fact is that the community is good at making those decisions. We shouldn't be legislating awkward fixes for imaginary problems. Melchoir 04:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe I've said all I can say on the subject at this point. As you observed, the community is good at making decisions, so now that an RfC has been posted, let's allow that to happen, shall we? Me, I'm going to bed. ⇒ BRossow T/C 04:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
This is right on the money. Following other naming conventions without using the "full official name" of the school, one can get a good, unambiguous name, with no slippery slope. The guideline should say what Melchoir said. Jesuschex 13:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favour of the proposed naming convention. More standardization never hurt anyone. I'm still amazed Wikipedia endures the principle of "common name over correct name", despite the existence of redirects. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 14:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Nightstallion does not address schools, but I still want to point out one thing: there is no principle of "X over correct name", because there is no such thing as a "correct name". I'm not making some wide-eyed relativity argument either; I'm serious. How do you determine the "correct name"? Is it on their seal? Their diploma? How about when those are in Latin? Is it the first usage on their website? Their given postal address? The name on their copyright notices? Their charter? Their first press release? Their most recent press release? Their listing in an authoritative source? Which source? Melchoir 21:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Either the diploma or the school seal would make perfect sense and provide a concrete reference where no judgment is required (unlike with your proposed guideline of just naming the article whatever you think is the "most common name" — how do you plan to determine what specifically constitutes "most common"?). No need to think beyond either of these, as all colleges and universities grant diplomas and most also have official seals. The diploma is preferred as it is how the school presents itself most officially, on the paper it hands each of its gradautes. I thought I already said this. ⇒ B.Rossow Talk|Contr 21:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Many universities spend more time, effort, and money on research than education. Why, then, is a diploma more official than, say, a grant proposal, or the appellation the instutution's researchers use for acknowledgements in academic papers? I am not saying that "most common" is perfect, but it works. Melchoir 21:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I think I pretty much agree with all Melchoir and Jesuschex have said above. This page has never really been discussed as a convention applying to colleges and universities -- when it was split, it was primarily intended to apply to the rapid proliferation of articles on junior and senior high schools, middle schools, elementary schools, preparatory schools, etc. Post-secondary schools in general have a higher degree of visibility and may be referenced in third-party media by common names other than the official designation of the school--which is the rationale for invoking the precedence of common names over official designations. The school NC was proposed as a way to distinguish between the potentially hundreds of Lincoln High Schools or Washington Elementary Schools. To apply a rule intended to address such primary and secondary institutions (most of which are not definitively on the encyclopedic side of the notability thresshold) to an internationally recognized instution like Stanford is just a little ridiculous. older ≠ wiser 17:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
That's also a good point. I'll add a notice to the page. Melchoir 20:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
In fact, look at the last sentence of the lead section: "Articles on schools preferably don't start with a definite article - this is similar as for universities..."; this was never meant to apply to univeristies at all. Melchoir 20:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
So what? It's a good guideline regardless of level and should be discussed currently outside of historical constraints. It's clear you disagree with the guideline, but its origin is wholly irrelevant to the current discussion. It should be discussed on its merits, not on its origin. ⇒ B.Rossow Talk|Contr 20:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
My point in adding the cautionary language to the page is to discourage future editors from going off on one-man crusades to rename all the universities that come to their attention. Warning: this page does not apply to universities. Someday it might, but currently it doesn't. To the contrary, the only time it mentions universities, it actually links to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite and indefinite articles at beginning of name)#When definite and indefinite articles should be avoided, which says "Thus, the most-common-name rule supersedes the official name." And that's been there since December 2004.
As for the current discussion, "regardless of level"? There is a gulf of qualitative differences between secondary and tertiary institutions. To extend a proposed guideline from one to the other is taking a radical step that demands a second layer of justification, and even the first layer is curiously absent. You are welcome to respond to my points above. Melchoir 20:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
But my point, which you have missed, is that because you've turned this from a guideline to a proposed guideline, the "new" guideline can apply to anything the community wishes. My intent here is for the "new" guideline to apply equally to schools PreK through postgrad. Or heck, even only to universities and colleges, as I believe consistency is extremely important on Wikipedia. That may not be your intent.
On a slightly different note, I found the following long-standing guideline (since May 2004) quite interesting: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity). It says this (with some emphasis added):
  1. When naming an article about specific people or specific groups always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations use, self identification (see list below).
  2. Use the most specific terminology available, thus if someone is of Ethiopian descent one would describe them as Ethiopian, not African.
I'll respond to your points if/when you respond to mine, which again I'll not repeat. ⇒ B.Rossow Talk|Contr 21:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
(2) does not apply, for example to Stanford; there is only one Stanford University. There is no Leland Stanford Senior University or Fred Stanford Junior University. (1) actually denies your proposal, since in practice organizations and groups of people do not use the most ornate name available to them. Stanford University calls itself Stanford University. Finally, you are overextending the spirit of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity), which admits at the very top, "This is perhaps one area where wikipedians flexibility and plurality are an asset, and where one would not wish all pages to look exactly alike." If you want to inherit from that guideline, we will need to copy that sentence to the top of this one. Melchoir 21:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
(2) most certainly does apply. It says nothing about duplicates; it specifically says "use the most specific terminology available." That's pretty cut-and-dried. "Leland Stanford Junior University" is more specific than "Stanford University." It is the most specific terminology available. And as for your suggestion that Stanford does not refer to itself using its full, proper name, you need look no further than the school seal and diploma, of which the former is on the article page and the latter is linked from its Talk page. You seem to think this is an all-or-nothing proposition, where we have to either take everything from another guideline or nothing, when in fact this is purely a fabrication on your part. This is [now] a proposed guideline; we can certainly feel free to adapt existing guidelines or even make up new ones. Don't feel constrained to existing policy and guidelines or you're wasting your time in this discussion. And, I really do have to ask it just one more time, where's the harm in consistency? ⇒ B.Rossow Talk|Contr 21:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no all-or-nothing; I am trying to make clear the context of the page you cited. It is not a precedent, and if you want to borrow from it out of context, you'll have to argue for that passage from scratch rather than appeal to authority. "use the most specific terminology available" is in conflict with general practice all over Wikipedia and WP:NC, and it demands an extraordinary argument in its favor.
What's the harm in consistency? How about this: what's the harm in the status quo? I have no intention of defending the introduction to Wikipedia:Naming conventions or the entirety of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) here. If you wish to overturn those general principles, we can carry this to the relevant talk pages. Otherwise, I need to hear why schools, university or otherwise, demand a departure from current practice. For consistency, these areas of Wikipedia should follow the same principles as the rest of Wikipedia. Melchoir 21:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I refuse to engage in further discussion with someone who apparently refuses to read my very specific reasons for the problem with the status quo and who does little but answer questions with questions. It's a waste of my time. Your argument for consistency by inconsistency is nonsense. If you can explain the problem with the articles carrying the proper names of the schools, I'll listen. Thus far you've done nothing even remotely close. ⇒ BRossow T/C 00:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
To respond to Brossow, my school's seal says "Simon's Rock." So, should Simon's Rock College be renamed Simon's Rock? (The answer is no, the seal was made back when the school was officially known as "Simon's Rock.")
I still see no progress on Brossow's part. His argument still boils down to "why not?" To use your favorite fallacy, why not be even more specific? Why not call Stanford University "Leland Stanford Junior University in Stanford, Santa Clara County, California, United States of America"? The problem with being too specific is that it gets annoying. If there were an article on me, I wouldn't want it to be "Joseph Walter Smith." I'd personally want it to be "Joseph Smith," but it'd probably be "Joe Smith," and I'd be fine with that. (My name actually isn't close to that.) Furthermore, it gets confusing when people read an article. If the article on Cher were entitled "Cherilyn Sarkisian," readers would be a tad bit confused. People know her as "Cher." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jesuschex (talk • contribs) 22:12, 7 April 2006.
  1. That's not a seal; it's a logo. Logos are frequently considerably less formal, less complete than the official school seal. If you look at the Binghamton University article, you'll see examples of each at the top of the article.
  2. If you're concerned about reader confusion, then (a) you don't give Wikipedia readers much credit, and (b) it begs the question of why you're not concerned that the very first sentence of each article bringing you and Melchoir into the fray (Simon's Rock College of Bard and Leland Stanford Junior University) both identify their respective schools by their full name. Do you really think people will be confused by the title but not by the body of the text, which leads off with the exact same name for the institution? Really? That's patently ridiculous. You seem to take no issue with the opening line of each article, each of which identifies the school by its proper name, yet you devote considerable effort to fighting over the article title itself. I admit it: I just don't get it. ⇒ BRossow T/C 00:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you pleading ignorant of the difference between the title of an article and its first sentence? One of these things profoundly affects incoming links and redirects, category listings, and Google ranks, and one of them does not. One of them is embedded in the MediaWiki software, displays in the page's URL, appears in the largest font on the page, and has an emotional and prescriptive impact on the reader, and one of them does not. It is completely standard practice all across Wikipedia for the first mention of an article's topic to use a more precise formulation than the title, and half of the examples cited on WP:NC(CN) do exactly that.
Why should schools be different? Melchoir 01:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I've already explained ad nauseum why schools should be different. Have you not read a word I've written? Addressing your other points (in no particular order):
  1. Changing the article title to the complete name will generate likely move the page higher in the Google ranking, not lower. Having the full name makes it more likely to be found in a search, not less likely.
  2. The title of any article in no way affects redirects or incoming links. That's ridiculous. It's not as if the redirects magically disappear when an article is named with the proper school name. "Stanford University" still redirects to the full page; no one will get lost or confused. I simply have no idea what you mean by "profoundly affects incoming links and redirects."
  3. Category listings? Yeah, God forbid the school be listed with its proper name in a category listing. How horrible would that be?
  4. Article names embedded in the software? Give me a break. They're embedded in a back-end database, not the software. Talk about a red herring.
  5. "Emotional impact" on the reader? I'll be blunt: anyone impacted emotionally by seeing the complete name of a school instead of a truncated version needs serious help, more than can be provided online.
Given all this — that Google rankings will likely increase, that redirects and links won't be affected a whit, and so on — you have yet to explain how a guideline that provides specific direction for naming school articles instead of the current "name it whatever you happen to feel is most popular" quasi-guideline, that actually prescribes that the school article be named the same as what the school itself most properly calls itself, and that would provide consistency instead of free-for-all among school articles is A Bad Thing™. ⇒ B.Rossow Talk|Contr 02:34, Saturday [[April 8]] [[2006]] (UTC)
Google ranks? How exactly will Google ranks increase? If people search for the full and complete name of the school, maybe.
You continue to repeatedly misquote people. Melchoir did not propose using "name it whatever you happen to feel is most popular." I highly doubt you have read WP:NC(CN). Please re-read it and focus on WP:NC(CN)#Don.27t_overdo_it:don't overdo it. Also, remember Melchoir's explanation a little while ago involving Brigham Young University (at 04:06, 7 April 2006)? Without consulting WP:NC(S) at all, using other policies and guidelines, he showed how to successfully name a school's page. Once again, stop misquoting people, and stop using the slippery slope fallacy. Jesuschex 14:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

To rebut your last post, I will only refer you to "Rationale" under WP:NC(CN).

You have not explained to anyone else's satisfaction why schools are different. In this edit I explained how the "too many common names" argument is both weak and irrelevant, and you have yet to reply. Melchoir 02:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Do something?

It seems as if people have pretty much said all there is to say. I think we should actually do something now. I think there are three options:

  • Enact the guideline as of 16 March 2006
  • Enact a new guideline:
  • Enact a new guideline that was somewhat proposed by Melchoir
    • Use the common name that includes "college," "university," or similar word that the school itself uses (schools like The New School wouldn't have college or university), and doesn't conflict with another article
    • Use the geographic disambiguation as currently dictated in the overview section
    • This will only apply to post-secondary institutions

The point is that we should decide upon something and advertise it as a request for comments, votes, or whatever.

Patience! An RfC was posted on April 7 (see the top of the page); today is April 10. There's no rush, and it seems more than a bit foolhardy to rush forward with implementing a policy guideline based on a handful of opinions given that lack of consensus was what drove us here in the first place. Drum up more interest if you can, but we are certainly not prepared to make a decision at this point (IMHO). ⇒ B.Rossow Talk|Contr 17:41, Monday [[April 10]] [[2006]] (UTC)

Let's do something ...

It's been more than a month since anything has happened with this. That being said, we should probably do something like vote on something. Anyone agree? Jesuschex 02:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

About school naming

If there is more than one school in the U.S., but only one in a given state, I still like to throw the city or county in. This is in case a school with the same name is proposed elsewhere in the state. WhisperToMe 16:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Name of school in French

I'm having an argument with a user, whether for the title for an article about a french school, we should put the REAL name of the establishement (in french) and in the article, put in parenthesis the english equivalent, or put the english equivalent in the title.

--Yongblood 02:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it should be in English, according to this. Read it though; there might be an exception for your case. Jesuschex 19:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, nearly forgot about this page. I'm delisting it as {{historical}}. Melchoir 19:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Naming schools conventions

I suggested some new similar naming conventions over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#Naming conventions for high schools --Liface 15:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(schools)/Archive_1&oldid=1140170059"