Talk:Union City High School

Requested move to disambiguation (again)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Disambiguation isn't necessary until other articles of this title are created. If and when that happens, discussion should resume. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Union City High School → Union City High School (New Jersey) – To disambiguate (again) from 5 other high schools with identical names. Moved before but moved back over the top of the disambiguation, so apparently disputed somehow. --Closeapple (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Rename, as nominator: I thought this was an uncontroversial move, particularly since there are 5 high schools apparently longer-established than the New Jersey one, and high schools are almost always notable, but apparently Nightscream (talk · contribs) (a sysop with plenty of experience) felt that it was uncontroversial to move the New Jersey topic back over the top of the disambiguation. Reasons to move and disambiguate:
  1. There are at least 6 high schools shown in Wikipedia's lists of high schools by state, just in the United States:
     • Union City Community High School in Union City, Randolph County, Indiana
     • Union City High School (Michigan) in Union City, Calhoun County, Michigan
     • Union City High School (New Jersey), the subject of this article
     • Union City High School (Oklahoma) in Union City, Canadian County, Oklahoma
     • Union City High School (Pennsylvania) in Union City, Erie County, Pennsylvania
     • Union City High School (Tennessee) in Union City, Obion County, Tennessee
  2. They are all established high schools, which means that, like nearly all high schools, they are almost certain to meet WP:ORG and WP:GNG as the subject of multiple independent articles, including independent articles outside of their local area if any of their academic or athletic teams have ever made it to regional or state competition. Presumption of notability for high schools is acknowledged by WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.
  3. Some of them are redlinks, but that is not a reason for removing them from a disambiguation page. Longstanding convention and MOS:DABRL are that redlinked items are to be expected, and the next most specific topic in their descriptions get bluelinked. I've heard of redlinks being cited as a reason to rid disambiguation pages of spam entries that will never have articles: but the reason those should be removed is based the concepts in WP:NOTDIR, not because guidelines prohibit redlinks on disambiguation pages. High schools are not companies or bands that some POV-pusher is sure will be "really famous now" if only they get a listing on a Wikipedia page. They are already-established institutions which are likely to be subjects of articles per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.
  4. I'm having trouble finding a guideline that supports the move edit summary that "A dab page is not justified when none of these other high schools have articles". I would hope that an editor would not require other editors to create stubs just to say that other topics "have articles" in advance when their notability is already highly likely, rather than just crystal-ball spam — and, more to the point, people going to that name are likely to often be looking for one of the others. While it's nice that topics about Union City, New Jersey have good coverage on Wikipedia, the New Jersey high school is only 2 years old, and the other high schools have actually been around longer, as far as I can tell. The high school with the most coverage on Wikipedia is not necessarily the high school with the most potential content.
  5. Some of these aren't linked from their "List of high schools" by-state articles is because some people have gone through an removed all redlinks from some states, making it difficult to tell when articles need to be disambiguated or need an article. As obvious as it seems to me that these schools are eligible to be linked, they are still eligible to appear even if not linked: Per MOS:DABRL, even if a high school didn't meet the criteria to be linked directly, it is eligible to have an entry on a disambiguation page, and the style manual notes 3 ways that such a topic should be dealt with if it is still likely to be what users are looking for.
  6. Also, just to get it out of the way: I don't think any one of the school qualifies for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as the "one" Union City High School most people are looking for, and especially not the New Jersey one that has only existed for 3 years, and has neither the name nor the site of either former high school in that city. (Again, just being in a city and region that's written about more on Wikipedia doesn't mean it's necessarily what readers are seeking.) If the New Jersey school has far more students than all the others, maybe there would a case for it being primary, but still, I doubt it &mdash it's difficult to claim that one well-established public high school is more important than another, as if there's one "real" Union City High School like there's "one" Michael Jackson or something.

  I hope this makes sense. --Closeapple (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

"Some of them are redlinks..." What do you mean some of them are red links? ALL of them are red links, except for the one in New Jersey. Where do you get "some" from? As for MOS:DABRL, it clear states that red links should only be included on dab pages when an article (not just disambiguation pages) also includes that red link. None of those red-linked topics appears in the respective Union City articles, nor am I aware that they appear in any other articles on Wikipedia. MOS:DABRL doesn't say anything about red links being "expected". Disambiguatory parenthetical should only be used in article titles distinguish an article from another article with the same name. Since there is no other article on Wikipedia named "Union City High School", the dab parenthetical is redundant.

"They are all established high schools, which means that, like nearly all high schools, they are almost certain to meet WP:ORG and WP:GNG as the subject of multiple independent articles..." Schools are not notable, nor likely to be subjects of articles, by virtue of being "established". (Established as opposed to what? Unestablished?) They are notable by virtue of being covered in sufficient secondary sources. If those schools were notable, then why has no one created articles on a single one of them?

"Presumption of notability for high schools is acknowledged by WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES." No, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says that high schools need to be reliably sourced within 12 months, or else they are deleted. It says nothing about high schools being presumed notable.

And no, I would not require editors to create stubs just to appear on a dab page. Rather, I would wait until articles appear naturalistically, the same ad hoc fashion all other articles do, and when they end up having the same name as an article already in existence, then we can address that with disambiguation. Maybe that's just me. Nightscream (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In order of the concerns raised by Nightscream above:

"ALL of them are red links, except for the one in New Jersey."

Very well, so they are all redlinks at the moment, except New Jersey. I already pointed out the fallback to this in #3 above: Even if the high schools didn't qualify for a redlink (which I think they do), MOS:DABRL says "If the only pages that use the red link are disambiguation pages, do one of the following:..." and has instructions for just such a circumstance. (See also "I would wait until articles appear naturalistically" below.)

"Schools are not notable, nor likely to be subjects of articles, by virtue of being 'established'."

I don't know what to make of this claim. It directly contradicts the text at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists."

"Established as opposed to what? Unestablished?"

Well, since you asked: yes. You noted a 12-month rule, but that only applies to "Schools that are being planned or built". None of these schools are in the planning/building stages. (Furthermore, the sentence about "12 months" in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is about whether reliable sources say the school is due to open within 12 months, not about whether the reliable sources themselves appear within 12 months in the article.)

"If those schools were notable, then why has no one created articles on a single one of them?"

For the same reason that, every day, hundreds of subjects that meet notability criteria are just now being created on Wikipedia. And for the question of why there is a high percentage of redlinked or unlinked high school names specifically: for the same reason there aren't many articles for school districts (which are near-inherently notable per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#School districts) — they're more "boring" to editors than the 5th episode of the 3rd season of some television series. But they're still almost all the subject of multiple independent sources. (See point #2 in the nomination.) Remember that, unlike some other huge categories of subjects on Wikipedia, high schools and school districts have never been the subject of a mass bot article creation run. For example, there are the tens of thousands of small municipalities and Census Designated Places across the United States, that have no information on their articles beyond that created by bots; members of U.S. Congress, whose articles almost all started out as stubs based on the official Congressional biographies; and the National Register of Historic Places (many items of which have far less coverage in independent sources than a typical high school). Most of those subjects would still be massively red-linked if it weren't for the bot runs. That doesn't mean that, before the bot runs, we should have unlinked all the names of Census Designated Places that didn't have articles. Remember, also, that the New Jersey school had the advantage of being discussed and built in the Internet age, only 3 years ago; other high schools require actual physical archives to find the amount of citations a recently-built high school would get, but that doesn't mean they have less coverage, just that their coverage is harder to get to quickly.

"I would wait until articles appear naturalistically, the same ad hoc fashion all other articles do"

I may be a little off-topic here, but: Isn't that what red links exist for? The primary purpose of red links is not to tell editors that a subject isn't worthy of an article and should be unlinked; it should only be unlinked if it's determined that an article is unlikely to be created in the future. Redlinks are not evidence that a subject is non-notable; that defeats the point of having redlinks. (Notability is not temporary. Even if a subject's "glory days" are behind it — or its rush of media coverage and excitement was 103 years ago or 53 years ago instead of 3 years ago — if the subject itself has had significant independent coverage at some point, it is notable.) --Closeapple (talk) 07:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support – even if the others are not notable, this title is too ambiguous and imprecise. It should clearly indicate the topic, which it will do if the state is added. Dicklyon (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Until there's another article, there's no need to disambiguate. However, disambiguation is advisable after just one of the other schools has an article created. --BDD (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose the article is clearly about New Jersey, so there should be no confusion if someone is looking for the same named school in another city. However, once there is another school article created, then DAB is advisable. Tiggerjay (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.