Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (U.S. schools)

Requiring city when disambiguating

In a significant majority of cases, when there are multiples, there are only two or three schools with the same name, each in different states. That "Springfield High School" would be acceptable if there are only one of the school, but that the full city and state would be required for every school if there were more than one seems rather hard to accept. This not only makes it harder on us editors, but makes it damn near impossible that anyone will ever type the correct link. If there's only one "Springfield High School" in a given state, using "Springfield High School (Tennessee)" seems to make far more sense. If there are two schools with the same name in the same state, only then should both city and state be required. Alansohn (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If you look at the above conversation, there's many cases when a school is named after the city it's in, so having something like Springfield High School (Tennessee) would make me assume that the high school is in Springfield, Tennessee; which it is, but what about cases like Springfield High School (New Middletown, Ohio)? If it weren't for the city, I would assume it was in Springfield, Ohio. Or cases like Jackson High School (Jackson, Ohio) and Jackson High School (Massillon, Ohio). I think the disambiguation policy should be definite to every school - what if another school pops up with the same name in the state? Then we have to go through and change all the links and titles. I think a definite policy would keep consistency. As for "typing in the correct link", it'll be easier this way, because the author doesn't need to know if there are multiple schools in a state, he'll just know it will always be (Municipality, State) --Dan Leveille^TALK 05:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Was there any effort to reach out to those people who actually create and edit school articles, or is this just one more case of a small handful of guys imposing an arbitrary and counterproductive policy just because it makes them feel that they've accomplished something? For the tiny fraction of schools with the same name in the same state, far fewer than 1% of all schools, imposing the requirement that all schools must have city AND state is idiotic. And what are the odds that every reader knows what city a school is in? This whole thing is BS. Alansohn (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to be hostile, I'm expressing my opinion. I'm an editor and creator of school articles, that's why I'm giving my opinion here, I had nothing to do with this proposal until yesterday. Like I said, many schools are named after the city they are in, so having just a state kind of confuses me as to the specific whereabouts of the school, but that's my opinion. However, many articles use the convention of (City, State), so why not keep it consistent. --Dan Leveille^TALK 05:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

New Jersey as a case history

New Jersey is a rather populous state (ranked #11), with some 400 odd public high schools, all but about 25 with articles. Of these 400 schools, about 85 have "New Jersey" in the title, reflecting the fact that there are other schools with the same name in other states. Only two -- Emerson High School and Memorial High School -- have more than one school with the same name in New Jersey. So for four schools (these two pairs), we're going to require both city and state? Isn't this the very small tail wagging the very big dog? And what about the 320 or so schools without a duplicate? Why not require city AND state for every school in the country and be done with this? There seems to have been very little effort to reach out beyond an extremely narrow group of individuals, and there seems to have been even less thought given to the logic and ramifications of the policy. Alansohn (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we need to get some other people's opinions on this, but I guess I do agree that it would be shorter and nicer. --Dan Leveille^TALK 06:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well to add my 2 cents; I would say that all schools in the US should be listed as School Name, City (spelled out), State (2 letter code only). The use of the spelled out state name is becoming less used all of the time. Also noting that only a small fraction of all schools have articles at this time, we are bound to get more conflicts as time goes on. Better to establish one policy and keep to it, rather than having to alter names as conflict keep comming up. We can always use redirects and convert them to disambiguation pages when the conflicts arise, instead of having to move the articles themselves. Dbiel ^(Talk) 08:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Alansohn, I know you work on school articles a lot, so I'm glad you're weighing in here. I work on disambiguation a lot, and I have to say I completely agree with Dan Leveille. Disambiguating school names will be far easier with a consistent policy, and it is my opinion that using (City, State) with every school will be the best solution. Let's face it, there really aren't many high schools that are generally known across the English-speaking world by their name only, without the city and state attached, anyway. Even within New Jersey, for example, I wonder whether people would know where Cherokee High School (New Jersey) is without going to the article. (I am not advocating that complete location information is necessary in the title of every article in WP, but I think we've established that schools require a specific solution.) As a dab page editor, page layout becomes much easier with both city and state. As for all the work required to change names and links and whatnot, there are plenty of gnomes, like myself, who would happily chip away at such a project if they knew there was a policy guiding them. For sure they won't do it without one, which is why there is no consistency now. By the way, I also prefer the state names spelled out rather than abbreviated, for the sake of non-American users. SlackerMom (talk) 13:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dbiel, I don't agree with the two letter code. Most of the disambiguation on Wikipedia is fully spelled out, no acronyms/abbreviations. It also makes it more confusing for people to understand, especially people who aren't from or familiar with the United States. --Dan Leveille^TALK 07:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Let's stick with New Jersey as an example. There's only one Arthur P. Schalick High School in the state, and no other in the US, as far as I know. From the title, no one could ever tell where it's located, either city or state, yet the argument used to demand both city AND state is not applied here. Furthermore, once they've gotten to the article, they can already see where the school is, they don't need to get that from the title. The bigger question is how will they ever get to the article in the first place? As to the example of Cherokee High School (New Jersey), Marlton, New Jersey is a neighborhood within Evesham Township, New Jersey, so which one do we pick, and who will ever type that from the command line? Then we'll have schools in places that occur multiply in the same state, which could lead (rather unnecessarily) to such monstrosities as Northern Burlington County Regional High School (Mansfield Township, Burlington County, New Jersey) or the very real Washington Township High School (Washington Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey) down the road. Given how little is gained, the inconsistency of not supplying location info for non-duplicates and the greatly increased likelihood that we editors will link to incorrect articles, this whole exercise seems spectacularly misguided. Alansohn (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Pre-emptive disambiguation (disambiguating school articles when there is not a naming conflict) for all school articles was pretty much scrapped a long time ago in this proposal. Nothing in this proposal demands pre-emptive disambiguation (Note this sentence: Disambiguation should only be used if there is an existing conflict between school articles with an identical name) except if it is very likely they will be a conflict in the future, and even that was a recently added exception paragraph and can be removed. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Check out Washington Township High School, which has more than one. If the issue is really a matter of knowing where the school is, the pre-emptive disambiguation argument is a non-issue; after all why exclude the needed information just because the school name is unique. Alansohn (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not a matter of knowing where the school is, pages as far as I am concerned, should not be disambiguated just for that - that information should be in the article already. They are only disambiguated to avoid naming conflicts - location is just used as it is the best thing to disambiguate by. As for bring back pre-emptive disambiguation for all school articles, a previous proposal suggested that and was heavily rejected, including by me. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I can honestly say I and other people have nearly made every attempt possible in trying to get people involved in making a guideline for school school naming a reality - and hence why I am a little shocked by these sudden comments. I have contacted every school WikiProject several times, brought it up a the village pump several times, contacted people directly to ask for feedback, and discussions on this have even been listed at WP:CENT once or twice. There is absolutely no attempt been made here to quietly impose anything on anyone; it is just a project that is trying to fulfil the demand for some kind of guideline on school article naming. As for the current proposal listing US school disambiguation to be (Municipality, State), well that was they way it was on the original proposal back at WP:NC(S), and there was never really any significant objections to it there. I do help write school articles, but I am not an expert on US location naming (note that I live in the UK), so I am very much open to suggestions on how this proposal can be improved, and I do think suggesting to not add the municipality/city unless it is needed is not a bad one. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have changed my opinion (as I do quite often), and although I do not agree with all his points, I think the defense made by Alansohn has merit. I think the proposal is good as it stands, without strengthening the requirement to always include both city and state. Thus the disambiguator (State) would be used if there are no duplicate names in the state, and (City, State) if there are. Camaron1, you are decidedly altruistic for a Brit. Far too kind to us Yanks, to be sure. SlackerMom (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the idea of using state to disambiguate first, and adding the city only when needed is a good idea; trying to avoid unnecessary disambiguation is sensible. If there is agreement here, the proposal page can be updated. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. State only, then city if there's a duplicate name. It also makes names look better. Names like Jefferson High School (Shenandoah Junction, West Virginia) do get kind of long. --Dan Leveille^TALK 07:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have tried to implement the changes. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks great! I made some minor grammatical changes. Take a look and make sure I didn't mess anything up. SlackerMom (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Good good. Now I feel bad that I spent a whole night moving a bunch of high schools to (City, State). But I'm glad we came to a consensus. :( --Dan Leveille^TALK 05:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been quiet for a while on this but I think it's time to chime back in. The issue seems to be getting a little confused. The goal of this policy, in my understanding, is to make it easy to relocate an article when creating a new one with the same or similar name. This being the case, the creator of an article may not know how many other schools of the same name exist, in that editor's state or in any other. I would rather see a single, coherent and easy to follow policy than a list of contingencies and exigencies. It's a lot easier to disambiguate by moving conflicting names to city and state and being done with it than to move each to its state. Then If I edit an article, I don't have to research every other possible variation on Loveland, Colorado before I figure out what the new title has to be. While I agree that in most cases, a state is enough of a disambiguator, I think that the same could be said of just the city. My position is this: The policy must be simple enough that it can be followed with minimal explanation and offering a single option is the best way to do that. Adam McCormick (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Again, if we need city AND state to uniquely identify a location, why not use it for all schools. Any solution that fully qualifies all schools with city AND state if there is more than one school with the same name anywhere else in the country but leaves all schools with no duplicates without any qualification is incoherent. Based on the results of New Jersey, a state that has articles for nearly every public high school, roughly 20% (about 85 of 400) have a similarly-named school elsewhere in the country. Only 1% (two pairs of schools) have the same name within the state. To require a standard that is driven off of the 1% of oddballs makes little sense, a tiny tail wagging a gigantic dog. Furthermore, while I have never seen any ambiguity as to the state a school is located in, the city can be rather ambiguous. Not to mention that article tiles of the ilk of Washington Township High School (Washington Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey) (or the standard-formed "Hempstead High School (Hempstead (village), New York)") are ludicrously awkward, will never be typed directly by an editor, and only add a further burden to those of us referencing these schools in articles. As we have it now, roughly 80% will require no disambiguation, 19% will be fully disambiguated using state and a minute 1% will require both city and state, which makes naming and finding articles significantly easier. Alansohn (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Alansohn, I have read and re-read your contributions to this page and I can't figure out exactly what you're saying. Sometimes I think you are in favor of the (City, State) for every school, and then I think you're saying it should be (State) only, unless more is needed. I'm sure I'm being dense, but would you mind stating very clearly what you propose the policy should be? How would you write it? SlackerMom (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also a little confused on your opinions over this proposal. You stated originally you did not like (City, State) idea, and preferred disambiguation only when needed - starting with (State). Now I am getting the impression you prefer pre-emptive disambiguation. If it helps, you can be bold and alter the current proposal and we can work from there. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• My proposal is to disambiguate using the minimum identifying characteristics necessary to uniquely identify a school: none, if there are no other schools with the same name (about 80% of schools); state, if there is only one in the state (about 20% of schools); and finally city AND state (for the 1% of schools that have more than one school with the same name in the same state). The alterantive proposal, to include city AND state to disambiguate schools has 1% of all schools wagging the tail of the 20% that don't need the city to be listed. Furthermore, if consistency is truly the issue, then city AND state should be required for the title of every single school article, not just ones requiring disambiguation. To demonstrate the unworkability of this methodology, I have presented examples of school names that would be ludicrously long if this disambiguation rule were applied to all schools or to only the 20% that require disambiguation. Alansohn (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You're presenting a straw man argument here. Just because premature disambiguation is unworkable doesn't mean that a complete lack of uniformity is the best option. I'm also not clear where you're getting your statistics. In my experience there aren't 20% of schools whose names match. I think that the ease of a simple standard outweighs the one in a thousand school names which might get a little long (extreme cases) and outweighs your cliche "tail wagging the dog" argument. I spent a lot of time trying to disambiguate schools and from my experience the most populous matching names tend to be in the same state (usually some famous person's home state). Adam McCormick (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your (Alansohn) suggestion above is pretty much what the current proposal says - what parts, if any, do you specifically want changed? Overall though, I am beginning to think we are heading toward no consensus with this proposal, I remain neutral for now on the (City, State) v. (State) choice of versions. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless we get :::a lot::: more input (say 20 active contributors) this guideline isn't likely to get approval. Too many will see it the way Alansohn did in his/her second post here. Unless we get a groundswell of support and input this will always be a pending or rejected proposal. I don't have a particular issue with a progressing guideline, I just think it's much more likely to be usable with a single option and procedure and therefor easier to get approved. Adam McCormick (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Alansohn's input is basically what the most of us previously already agreed on, isn't it...? --Dan Leveille^TALK 20:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

His input is not unreasonable, but this guideline needs a much wider input then the five at a time it has always gotten. This guideline, and its global counterpart won't be accepted until it is palatable to the majority of editors. The chief complaint I've heard on guidelines is that they are overly complicated, and it's my chief concern. Adam McCormick (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have put this back on WP:CENT, as this proposal is now active and more input is needed. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Status of Guideline

I'm holding off before moving articles to this naming convention, because I'm waiting for this to become approved. I'd say that it looks pretty good. What needs to be done, now? --Dan Leveille^TALK 21:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this consensus?

Please see my query on the main school naming conventions page: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (schools)#Now what?. If this is now the guideline, besides the bot request, I'd like to request that those doing the page moves also clean up the disambiguation pages. This was not done, for example, for Ashland High School. Katr67 (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Rejected

It seems strange to find this proposal marked rejected and not to find any discussion or comment about its rejection on this talk page. Dbiel ^(Talk) 21:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on this proposal has not formed, and seems unlikely to form now, regardless of if there is active discussion or not on this page. I do agree that to some extent that the {{Rejected}} is a little misleading, but after previous (now archived) discussion at WT:NC(S), this is the correct tag to use per WP:POLICY. If discussion restarts properly, the {{proposed}} tag can be re-added. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)