Talk:Catholic Memorial School

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States / Boston (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts - Boston (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Schools (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Requested move[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. The debate about this article name generally flows around three interlocking and hard-to-separate questions: how ambiguous this name is; whether it is the primary topic or not; and which of the prior two questions is more important. I see consensus on none of these questions, and contention on all of them. (Note: This is the second closure of this discussion; it was closed once before, also as no consensus, and then re-opened by request.) Aervanath (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This close has been discussed below (at #Close challenged), Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Unnecessary_disambiguation, and Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#Review_move_decision. It has been requested on my talk page that I clarify the above statement, which I have tried to do briefly immediately below.--Aervanath (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The question here: "How ambiguous is the name of this article?" The argument in favor of this move is that since there is no other school with this exact name ("Catholic Memorial School") with an article on Wikipedia, there is no ambiguity, or at least not enough to justify disambiguation. Others claim that there is ambiguity, since there are enough other schools with similar names that disambiguation is necessary. If there is an overriding Wikipedia policy which supports either side in unequivocal terms, I am not aware of it; in my view, the relevant policies and guidelines can be (and have been) interpreted to support either side. There have been discussions on this subject in the past, but none of them seem to have resulted in a clarification of our guidelines which deal with the topic. Thus, I see no consensus on this question, either local or general. Should a general consensus be formed which clarifies WP:Article titles or WP:Disambiguation to answer this question, it would make this specific discussion much easier to resolve.
It has also been put forward in favor of the move that since Catholic Memorial School has been a redirect to this school for a long time, this is prima facie evidence that this school is the primary topic for "Catholic Memorial School", even if there are other schools with similar names. I don't see consensus for this in the discussion, either.
Since there is no consensus, no action is taken.--Aervanath (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


Catholic Memorial School (West Roxbury, Massachusetts)Catholic Memorial SchoolRelisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Unnecessary disambiguation. Powers T 01:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I can be convinced by argument and evidence, as some RMs and other discussions show. I am debating whether to bother presenting evidence and arguments in RMs at all though, since very few participants have been observed changing their minds or their votes – or even answering the hard questions. Let's just cast a vote, get a coloured thumb, and move on to something productive.
If a vocal and active minority really wants, needlessly and heedlessly, to weaken the encyclopedia and make it manifestly less useful to millions of users all over the world, of course that tiny minority must have its way, with their narrow and distorted interpretations of policy and guidelines to call on.
Who am I to stand in the way of decline? Let the voting continue; and adjourn the mourning for good sense and genuine dialogue sine die. ♥
NoeticaTea? 05:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Such cases are easily handled with hatnotes, which would be necessary whether this page is disambiguated or not, since Catholic Memorial School already redirects here. Powers T 19:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
A patently, woefully inadequate response to my detailed submission here, Powers. But that should not concern you; it's the norm. Ignore the world and its information needs. Such concerns are peripheral; none of Wikipedia's business. Ignore Bishop Paschang Catholic School ("Bishop Paschang Catholic School was formerly known as the 'Bishop Paschang Memorial School' "); ignore Reading Central Catholic High School ("more completely, Monsignor Bornemann Memorial Central Catholic High School of Reading, Pennsylvania"); ignore John F. Kennedy Catholic High School (Burien, Washington) ("formerly known as John F. Kennedy Memorial High School, but changed its name with the beginning of the 2009/2010 academic year in order to reflect its Roman Catholic roots"), since we must trim every title that can be trimmed down to its bare minimum length, on whatever pretext we can find. If the good alumni of Kennedy Catholic are months behind the cutting edge, that's their bad luck. "Primary topic" must be shoe-horned in as invincibly paramount.
Let the voting continue, and let the numbers be mechanically counted. We'll continue to talk past each other and ignore the big picture, and the usefulness of Wikipedia. Fair arrangement? Sure it is! ♥ NoeticaTea? 01:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Your sarcasm makes it nearly impossible to hold a reasonable dialog. Powers T 18:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Powers, if from our past encounters I had any reason to expect responsive dialogue, I would certainly assume good faith and proceed in the hope that we might actually exchange ideas. Since your style has been to start a discussion, expressing your own point of view, and then not stay to answer questions that challenge your assumptions, rationality is to no avail. Do not be affronted if I resort to sarcasm when you are unable to define a proper noun, or unwilling to consider afresh the usefulness of Wikipedia to its readers. A hidebound adherence to rules, narrowly interpreted, is against the spirit of the Project. Go read about sphexishness: "This iteration can be repeated again and again, with the Sphex never seeming to notice what is going on, never able to escape from its programmed sequence of behaviors." (☻) NoeticaTea? 01:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I find it difficult to believe that the person who opposed moving The LEGO Group on the grounds that MOS:TM didn't explicitly apply to the names of companies -- even though its applicability has been widely established and accepted for quite some time -- is accusing me of interpreting rules too narrowly. The fact is that removing unnecessary disambiguation has been uncontroversial in nearly every case (outside a couple of specific and well-defined specialties, such as U.S. Routes), and the opponents of this process -- basically you, Tony, and Dicklyon -- have not yet explained the circumstances under which we should be using unnecessary disambiguation. Should every article be disambiguated, whether necessary or not? If so, how do we determine which disambiguator to use? If not, then where is the line drawn? What articles need disambiguation and which do not? Powers T 19:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Powers, you misrepresent the facts. This is not the place for us to settle all general issues, but take note: I explicitly stated that I opposed moving that LEGO article until I saw good argument for the move. If you, and any number of other editors who are not MOS specialists, are oblivious to the difference between a trademark, a trade name of a business that may own trademarks, and other business names, you are free to remain in that ignorance. As a MOS specialist, I am not happy with such sloppiness. The problem is now fixed, through dialogue that was impeded by the advocates of imprecision.
For the rest, take it to an appropriate forum, or to my talkpage if you have a specific problem with my concern for accuracy or usefulness on Wikipedia. Briefly, no: straw-man examples like Barack Obama and London do not need qualifiers for the reader to recognise the topic at a glance. But such local-interest articles as Little Bow, French Quarter, and the various Yui articles do. It is obsessive and narrow-minded to hunt down every opportunity for brevity; the benefit is minute and the potential harm looms much larger.
When guidelines that affected The LEGO Group were clarified, I withdrew my oppose vote in the RM, with full annotation and explanation. Non-sphexish flexibility. Watch and learn.
NoeticaTea? 02:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm finding your air of superiority a bit tiresome, but I'll try to respond anyway. I'm still not clear on the benefit of parenthetical disambiguation where it's not needed for the creation of a unique article title. You talk about "recognis[ing] the topic at a glance", but I don't see how the addition of a qualifier assists the reader who isn't already familiar with the subject. I'm also not clear what the "potential harm" is from having concise titles that avoid unnecessary disambiguation; your earlier sarcasm makes it difficult to discern if you provided an explanation previously, but I can't find it off-hand. Powers T 18:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Superiority is one thing, an air of superiority is another. If I know more about language than you do (and am aware of difficulties that you gloss over concerning "proper nouns", say), and if I take seriously the wording of Wikipedia's Manual of Style where you rely on hazy rules of thumb and doubtful precedent, then perhaps you have something to learn. We all do. I learn all the time here. You started a discussion on "proper nouns" as if the notion were trivially easy to deploy. When challenged with elementary examples, you failed. And then you went missing. That's your prerogative; but don't expect me to be impressed, after I took the time and made the effort to join in the conversation with detailed contributions.

"You talk about 'recognis[ing] the topic at a glance', but I don't see how the addition of a qualifier assists the reader who isn't already familiar with the subject."

A web user happens upon a reference to some school that is Catholic and memorial – like the one in Massachusetts, the one in Wisconsin, the one in Penola (South Australia), and hundreds of others around the world. She Googles the terms "Catholic", "memorial", and "school". In the first 100 results many schools are found; but there are only two results from Wikipedia, coming second and third in the list: the Massachusetts one and the Wisconsin one. The reader can see at a glance (they are highlighted in bold coloured headings) which of these to examine further, or alternatively (given the different context in which the terms had been found in her reading), immediately dismiss them and search down the list for others, perhaps then looking on Wikipedia. If Wikipedia's page Catholic Memorial School were a comprehensive DAB page (not a mere uninformative redirect), that might come up early on Google, and the reader could go straight there for further pointers. We should maximise the probability of our being useful in such a way.
There. A sample of considerations, to take the unpredictable behaviour of our readers seriously.
NoeticaTea? 03:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm just not convinced. We have no tradition here on Wikipedia of using parenthetical disambiguators where they are not needed in order to create a unique article title -- a technical restriction. Were it feasible technically, I expect we would remove them entirely. The problem with using them for context is that determining which context (or how much context) they should provide. To take your example, what if your hypothetical web user doesn't know that the school for which she is looking is in Massachusetts? What if she only knows that it opened in 1957? Or that its athletic nickname is "Knights"? Which of these tidbits of added context should we put in the title, and which should we not... and why?
In truth, I think you'd find greater acceptance of disambiguating this particular article's title if you had contended that "Catholic Memorial School" is an ambiguous term, rather than that the undisambiguated title doesn't provide enough context. I'm not sure I'd agree, but the contention would at least be in-line with actual practice on Wikipedia. Powers T 21:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. There is no other article currently on WP that is or reasonably could be titled precisely "Catholic Memorial School". When article titles are not in confict (i.e., not identical), any disambiguation, if necessary, is better handled by hatnotes than by adding artificial parenthetical phrases to the topic's real name. In this case, a {{distinguish}} hatnote pointing to the Wisconsin high school might be reasonable, if not strictly necessary. It is unlikely any significant number of readers will be looking for any other school that currently has an article on WP by searching for or linking to that specific phrase. Station1 (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
With respect, Station1, we just don't know that. We don't know how readers will interrogate Wikipedia – through Google, as is often their way in, or in the search box at the top right of the Wikipedia display. Some have a half-remembered name or phrase in mind, or one that is superseded, and they will try variants until they get what they are after. The notions "Catholic", "memorial", and "school" are so generic, and apply to so many topics (with articles, or so far lacking an article), that we should not make brisk assumptions of the sort you do here. Indeed, of the sort normally made in RMs. We know Wikipedia so well that we forget how things are for naive searchers, who outnumber us by orders of magnitude. This has become a pervasive problem, and it needs to be tackled systematically in a broader forum than this. Admins closing these RMs would do well to think freshly also. Too mechanical; too heedless of readers' interests; too sphexish. NoeticaTea? 03:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
It's true we don't know that. It's equally true we don't know the opposite. We can only use our judgment, based on evidence and experience, as to what is more likely or less likely to be the case. I think it's better to serve what I believe are the larger number of users who know what they're looking for, rather than the much smaller number who don't; the latter have internal and external search engine to find what they need. You may honestly disagree, but to accuse those who disagree with you of thinking mechanically and ignoring readers' interests is not only somewhat insulting but, in most cases, wrong. Station1 (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Some less appreciated causes to feel insulted: People starting a tendentious conversation and withdrawing when the going gets choppy for them; people failing to answer direct questions; people manifestly refusing to look at the big picture when invited to do so, cleaving to the letter rather than the spirit; people never addressing the situation of the naive reader of Wikipedia – the vast majority, whose interests we are here to serve. Feel as you will, and I will feel as I will. Diagnose what you will; and I will diagnose mechanical, blinkered thinking where I find it.
People arrive at Wikipedia by all sorts of routes, Google searches prominent among them. When here, they put all sorts of odd expressions into the search box (typing, or pasting whole strings). You cannot predict what they will do; nor can I. But we can all keep titles of obscure or highly specific articles informative. It takes a tiny effort to do that, and the effort is well spent.
NoeticaTea? 03:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unnecessary deletion of useful disambiguation. The article needs a lot of work on sourcing more than it needs a move; I added a few tags and did some copyedits to bring it toward WP conformance. Dicklyon (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Dicklyon, which is all that needs to be said about the matter. Greg L (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose—Ah, sorry to come in late; I haven't had time to check Noetica's contribs page for about a week. The matter of specificity is difficult for article titles, and most editors acknowledge that we need to do some serious thinking about it at WP:TITLE and elsewhere. At the very least, we need more detail to give editors a more nuanced feeling for what is too much and what is too little. Some of our current practices (based on interpretations of wording put into wp:title without sufficient discussion, IMO) are the easy way out and is producing problems where over-general article titles appear in a list (as opposed to the specific context of an inline wikilink/pipe). It's a particular problem in google search results and in category pages, where readers will be irritated by having to divert to the article itself to find they've gone down a rabbit hole. It's worsened by the frequent disregarding of our rules about avoiding unnecessary capitalisation: we haven't yet reached the stage where caps or downcasing each send a reliable signal. Even as proposed with caps, I find Catholic Memorial School dangerously general, even if it's a formal name (does the school really use just three words on its letterhead? There must be many such schools in the world with the same title or part-title. If editors are concerned with the length, I could personally live with the removal of the state. Tony (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

    PS Noetica, I scuttled to the article on Sphex but didn't get the wry point you probably intended. Maybe I'm too tired. Powers, let's be kinder to each other and be slow to accuse. Sometimes things come over on-wiki that weren't intended. Tony (talk) 08:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, Tony. Because people are busy I had already given the summary from that link. See this, above: "This iteration can be repeated again and again, with the Sphex never seeming to notice what is going on, never able to escape from its programmed sequence of behaviors." The point, of course, is that we have to move beyond stereotyped and blinkered behaviour in these RMs and creatively consider the real issues. The wasp Sphex famously cannot do that; we should be better at it on Wikipedia (despite interesting analogies to ant nests, beehives, and other collectives).
NoeticaTea? 11:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Noetica. Lovely explanation. Tony (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I've been unkind in this discussion, Tony. That Noetica used sarcasm is beyond dispute, and I merely pointed out that doing so makes it difficult to hold a reasoned discussion. Powers T 19:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per Station1. There's no need to disambiguate here. For those worried about the "dangerously general" nature of the phrase "Catholic Memorial School", I encourage you to do some research. My own Yahoo! search for that phrase showed results that were almost exclusively for this school in the first 50 (even accounting for Wikipedia mirrors). As for the school's letterhead, take a look at their website, and judge for yourself how the school refers to itself. Just because something sounds generic doesn't mean it is. Dohn joe (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Dohn, please see my comments in answer to Powers and Station above. We just don't know how people interrogate this encyclopedia, or from what hazy recollections they might search for what they are after. Why risk making life hard, when straightforward additions to article titles remove that risk entirely? NoeticaTea? 03:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Noetica - I understand your point about the likely impreciseness of the searches of some of our readers. I'm not sure that your solution really addresses it meaningfully, though. Two scenarios to ponder here.

1) Someone with a hazy recollection of a "Roxbury Catholic school" who types that phrase into our searchbox will get no help from a prompt, and wouldn't, regardless of the title of this article. If they hit "Enter" anyhow (give it a shot), they'll be taken to the search results page, where the first result will be the title of this article (whatever it is) - along with the first sentence or so: "Catholic Memorial School is an all-boys college preparatory school (grades 7–12) located in West Roxbury..." No matter the title of this article, that intro should be enough to let them know that they've found the right place.

2) Someone with a hazy recollection of a school named something like "Catholic Memorial" (let's say Judge Memorial Catholic High School) who types "Catholic Memorial School" into our searchbox will also get no help from a prompt, and wouldn't under your scheme, either. If that person hits "Enter"...they'll get redirected to this article, which also wouldn't change under your scheme as I understand it. So where is the benefit to our poor, befuddled reader who can't find Judge Memorial Catholic High School? If we leave in this disambiguation, that reader will know that this isn't the article they want, but we haven't gotten them any closer to the one they do.

As for Google searches, similar principles apply. If someone remembers enough of the keywords, then the Wikipedia article title, along with the first sentence or so, will pop up in their search, and they'll have the context they need to figure out what article they want to read. Does that make sense as to why unnecessary disambiguation is still unnecessary - and not actually helpful to the readership? Dohn joe (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

John Doe, what about the dysfunctionality of category lists, then? What use are they if readers/editors are faced with misleading, vague article titles (at least vague to this extent)? Tony (talk) 02:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Tony - I guess I don't know about category-list dysfunctionality. Can you give me an example? Dohn joe (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Dohn, see my reply to Powers about Google searches, above. I regard these as crucial for our titles to take into account. That is how many web users encounter our articles; Google knows that, and gives our titles great prominence. This is not understood well by WP editors.
I consider the behaviour of WP's own search prompts important, even if these are a second consideration after Google has been taken into account. Under "my scheme" in its completeness, or some scheme that I would accept, one might type as far as "Catholic Memorial" and get a better, more comprehensive DAB page that would include several that are not readily findable now. As things stand, prompts show a couple of DAB pages with identical content (is that kosher?), and two specific article pages: for Massachusetts and Wisconsin. Under the proposal in this RM, it is hard to say how things might go. Not usefully for the reader, as far as I can see.
I regret that because of commitments in the world at large I have little time to take this further (though I have, you will agree, commented in detail already; thanks to you, for doing the same). For me the essential point is broad. I don't really care about individual cases of confusion arising from bad RMs; I would like to see a more sophisticated understanding of titles generally, for our millions of articles. Things are at a low standard right now.
NoeticaTea? 03:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Why do you say Google "gives our titles great prominence"? Station1 (talk) 07:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Because it does. Google "physis", "Socrates", "apple" (Apple's site is first in results, followed by three Wikipedia articles), "dilemma", "Oodnadatta", "conspiracy theory" (first three hits), and any number of other terms or phrases added to those random selections of mine. Google loves Wikipedia, and Wikipedia has reason to love Google. Web users love the combination. We should deepen our understanding of this. We should take it into account at RMs and in naming articles generally. It is a major and inescapable component of the Project's usefulness, and its service to readers.
NoeticaTea? 07:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, I may have misunderstood. If you are saying that WP articles come up prominently in Google searches, of course I agree. If you are saying how we title the articles has a great deal to do with that, I was under the impression that is not the case. Station1 (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I was under the same impression. Namely, that keywords, and not titles, are what drive search results. And often, they match up. When, on occasion they don't, though, it's keywords that seem to matter. For example, the WP article about airplanes is found at Fixed-wing aircraft, because editors didn't want to use either "airplane" or "aeroplane" as the title. Try googling "airplane", though, and Fixed-wing aircraft is the first result. Second, for me at least, is Airplane! - a comic movie. Airplane (disambiguation) is not even in the first five pages of results. One would think that if the title drove the search results that it would be higher up. I'd love to know more about how it all works, but under my current understanding, the presence or absence of bracketed info does not make a huge difference in the search results - it's content that counts. Dohn joe (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Noetica, I do believe that what you just said needs to be posted at WT:TITLE too. Tony (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Dohn, well the US boys' schools cat. is the first-named at the bottom of the article page. The vast majority of titles give a reasonable cue to where/what they are. Catholic Memorial School doesn't, so a reader or editor using the category list in their research will come to a halt at that, and often be forced to click to the article to determine whether it lies within their ambit of interest. Tony (talk) 09:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Reopening Comment - RM reopened per requested on my talk. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - As long as Catholic Memorial School is a redirect to this article, this article should be moved to Catholic Memorial School, because the redirect indicates we consider the topic of this article to be the unique or primary topic for "Catholic Memorial School". If there is an argument for making Catholic Memorial School a dab page, then make that argument, and, if consensus is found to support, then turn that redirect into a dab page accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment for closing admin - as of right now, there are only four editors who are opposed to this move, and at least three of them (Noetica, Tony and Dicklyon) consistently oppose such moves, and generally favor titles that are predisambiguated. Just one example of a discussion in which they tried to make their argument is here. They know that general consensus disagrees with them, but they keep trying to buck tradition in relatively obscure discussions like this one. Since there are three or four of them, often that's enough to persuade an admin into thinking there is no consensus. The fact is that policy and practice indicates we only disambiguate when necessary for, well, disambiguation. No one has argued that there is something about this case that should make it an exception to standard policy and convention. I hereby request that their !votes be discounted accordingly, and for general consensus, as reflected in policy and practice, to be given more weight. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, our WP:AT policy is pretty clear. The proposed name meets the requirements for naturalness, precision and conciseness, and quoting, "titles usually use names and terms that are precise [...], but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously". WP:PRECISION in WP:AT says "When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article title from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise, but only as precise as necessary" (emphasis mine). It's worth remembering that article titles are not for educating or informing the reader, that is the purpose of the article content. Titles are to facilitate viewers searching and locating an article on the subject they're looking for. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 03:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Move per long-standing practise of not using disambiguators in primary topic articles. Jafeluv (talk) 07:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move to alternate The current title is rather unwieldy. I think Catholic Memorial School (Massachusetts) would be a much better title. Hot Stop talk-contribs 12:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
There's the smell of canvassing. Tony (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
? Hot Stop talk-contribs 12:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Why would we redirect Catholic Memorial School to Catholic Memorial High School? The latter has an extra word in it. We don't use parenthetical disambiguation on similar names, we use it on identical names. Note that we have Apple Inc. and Apple Records, not Apple Inc. (technology company) and Apple Records (music company); we have SAS Group and SAS Cargo Group, not SAS Group (airline company) and SAS Cargo Group (cargo company); we have SPEAR and Spear, not SPEAR (collider) and Spear (weapon). TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 02:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Simply because it's an improvement on what we have currently, and the current proposal is not. Agree the redirect could work the other way too, perhaps better if that's what you're suggesting, but there are criteria other than precision although that is a factor in deciding which way around it should go. Andrewa (talk) 07:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose and make CMS a dab page. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
    • What specific articles would you list in the dab page? If someone had changed the redirect to a legitimate dab page, there would be nothing to discuss here. But Catholic Memorial School is not a dab page, it's a redirect to this article. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Until someone creates an article with verifiable content about another school named "Catholic Memorial School", there is no reason for disambiguation. Further, considering that there is exactly one article about a school named "Catholic Memorial High School", Catholic Memorial High School (Waukesha, Wisconsin) page should also be moved over the current disambiguation at Catholic Memorial High School. Hatnotes can handle any any confusion between the two. olderwiser 15:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. If there's no other article of this title, the parenthetical disambiguation is totally unnecessary. It would appear that there's only one other school with a similar name; hatnotes between them would easily solve the problem of getting readers to the information they're looking for.--Cúchullain t/c 16:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose move and convert Catholic Memorial School into a disambiguation page. Noetica presents a very persuasive argument. There is no clear primary topic for this ambiguous term. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
    What specific articles would you put in a "Catholic Memorial School" disambiguation page? Dohn joe (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Seems to me that Catholic Memorial School should indeed redirect here (this is the only school we know of that is referred to by that name, except possibly the CMHS - but dab pages are no more helpful than hatnotes when there are only two topics), and if it does so, then there's no need for the disambiguator (the name doesn't seem that generic). If we think there are other schools that might be referred to as such, then we could have a hatnote either to a specific dab page (if someone wants to construct one) or to a more general one like Memorial High School (though here there is no "High", so that doesn't seem particularly appropriate). By the way, I've converted what was previously a dab page at Catholic Memorial High School into a redirect+hatnote at the other article - it was weird that that phrase (which is less ambiguous) should have had a dab page, whereas this (the arguably more ambiguous one) doesn't. (I would also suggest losing the disambiguator from the Catholic Memorial High School (Waukesha, Wisconsin) title - it seems even less necessary than this one.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as the only topic called Catholic Memorial School, providing hatnotes for people who may be looking for another topic using the wrong title. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose I completely agree with User:Alpha Quadrant. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  • This has been asked already, but has not been answered -- what ambiguous articles would be on the disambiguation page? Not one of the articles that Noetica mentioned would qualify as ambiguous and would be promptly removed from a disambiguation page -- that is, unless the articles are edited to present verifiable evidence that the school are known as "Catholic Memorial School".
  • Oppose. I fail to be convinced that we have a primary topic. While some editors are willing to wave the 'unnecessary to disambiguate' flag as justification to eliminate any disambiguation, that strict reading may not be helpful to readers. In the case here, the current title is correct, provides information, follows the naming convention that usually is applied to US school articles and is not wrong. Oh what's wrong with a constant form for school article names if that means a few get some extra disambiguation? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
    Are you claiming there's a convention for schools that causes them to be redundantly disambiguated (like there is for U.S. towns)? If so, it would make the current title seem more reasonable, but looking at others in its categories, it seems that the majority do not have a disambiguator (I presume those that do have it because it's needed).--Kotniski (talk) 10:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
    What's your position then as to the best use of Catholic Memorial School? Should it continue to redirect here, as the only article on WP that uses that form, or should it be a dab page? If so, what else should be on that page? Dohn joe (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Catholic Memorial School redirects here and I haven't seen any suggestions on what to put on a dab page, should we create one. This appears to be not just a primary use, but a unique use of this name. If we disambiguate this title with what/where information, why not disambiguate every title in WP that way? Why treat this one article differently? --Born2cycle (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support because there are no other pages with the same name. In this discussion I see zero proposals of possible articles that could be written under the same name. To convince people you need to present topics that could realistically be used in a disambiguation page. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of intention to dispute any move based on the above discussion[edit]

It is extraordinary that the RM was closed, after a full two weeks of discussion, and then re-opened at the request of User:Born2cycle (see this section at Mike Cline's talkpage). It is also extraordinary that Born2cycle sought to have my vote, and the votes of two other experienced, knowledgeable, and respected editors "discounted", on the ground that we regularly form an interpretation of policy and guidelines that diverges from his own. See relevant discussion at WT:TITLE.

Given such irregularities, I will participate no more in this compromised RM. But if there is a move as result of it, I will issue another RM, with an improved and more comprehensive proposal for affected articles. It will draw on the few constructive suggestions made in the first RM; and I will argue that the present title ought to be considered the status quo.

NoeticaTea? 08:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

In case you missed it before it was archived from Tony1's talk page, this is the explanation given by Mike Cline for agreeing to re-open this discussion:

Tony, I understand your concern. However RM is not a contest, nor is it a binding process. Any RM discussion can be immediately restarted (especially no consensus ones) (several examples of that underway now) by any editor, and as you know, unless someone move protects the article, the title change can be made unilaterally anyway. Since RM closes can happen at anytime after 7 days, when an editor asks me to reopen the discussion in a no consensus debate, I generally do. Further civil discussion to reach consensus is always better than festing contentiousness over a title. As for the potential of WP:CANVASS issues, that's something you'll have to deal with outside of RM. FYI, when I revert my closes, I generally don't do the subsequent close to preclude involvement concerns.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, I don't understand what the WP:CANVASS comment is referring to. I did ask Mike to re-open the discussion, I commented here after he did, and I noted it had been re-opened back in the WT:Article titles discussion where I learned about this one. I'll just add that there is a minimum time that RM discussions are open, but there is no maximum time. And when someone decides to close one is largely arbitrary. As Mike explains, there is nothing lost in re-opening a discussion, and can be constructive when there was no consensus earlier, and consensus can still be achieved. Generally, more time and more opportunity for more people to weight in is considered to be a good thing. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
No more time to waste on this. I'll wait and see what happens, as I said. NoeticaTea? 09:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, 'no consensus' results can be reopened at any time if there's a chance consensus may form. Noetica, I find it saddening that you don't like the idea of the votes of Tony, Dicklyon and yourself being discounted, but you don't want the discussion reopened so that the tens of thousands of 'experienced, knowledgeable, and respected editors' on Wikipedia may have the opportunity to similarly share their perspectives here. I would sincerely hope that you don't feel you're part of any sort of elite clique that has any more sway or influence than any other editor on this collaborative project. I'm sure you understand that as far as consensus-building is concerned, the strength of an argument is what holds sway, not the perceived standing of its author. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
You misrepresent what I said, TS. Of course I agree that arguments should count, and I deplore evaluation of RMs by the reductive method of mere vote-counting (see my remarks way above, on this being too often the way of things). As for re-opening RMs, that is quite unusual. If it were the norm, I would not object. It is far from the norm. This re-opening was requested by an editor who persistently pushes the boundaries of acceptable practice at RMs: by closing them against the established conventions for non-admins, by prolonged disputation with closing admins, by rushing to seek changes in guidelines (WP:MOS, for example) and policy at the same time as seeking their implementation at RMs. He is consistent in his interpretation of policy and guidelines; so am I, and so are Tony and Dicklyon. It is outrageous and contrary to sound practice and civility to suggest that votes (or evidence, or arguments) be "discounted" because they disagree with one's own views. They do not thereby disagree with policy or guidelines; the provisions to be applied at RMs can be interpreted several ways, and can be given variable weight. That is an important insight; I wish it were more generally achieved.
I am not happy to spend time on this here. I simply wanted to give notice of something. I will not soapbox, if others will not seize the opportunity to do so.
NoeticaTea? 23:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
The position I advocate is consistent with consensus interpretation of policy and guidelines. The position you, Tony and Dicklyon advocate is inconsistent with consensus interpretation of policy and guidelines with regard to the scope of recognizability (to whom are titles to be recognizable - people already familiar with the topic, or others too?) and WP:PRECISION (should titles be only precise as necessary to disambiguate them from other actual uses in WP, or should they be more precise to disambiguate them from other potential uses in the English language that don't have uses in WP). The repeated attempts the three of you make to push your POV, like in RM discussions like the one, amounts to tendentious editing and disruption, and this is becoming more evident to more editors all the time. Enough already. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
As you say in your edit summary, "enough already". It is simply not true that your interpretation of policy and guidelines represents a "consensus interpretation". Your asserting it again and again, with an appearance of confidence, does not make it so. I would advise you, of all people, not to touch on the question of "tendentious editing" (see also your talkpage, I note). Let's wait and see what happens in this RM. I hold off concerning its progress and its content so far.
NoeticaTea? 00:25, 23 December 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Close challenged[edit]

Key to the closer's "no consensus" decision just above was this statement: "The debate about this article name generally flows around three interlocking and hard-to-separate questions: how ambiguous this name is; whether it is the primary topic or not; and which of the prior two questions is more important. I see consensus on none of these questions, and contention on all of them. "

While there might be appear to be a lack of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and contention among the few involved in this discussion, the issue about ambiguity and primary topic is clearly settled as far as community consensus is concerned, by the fact that Catholic Memorial School redirects to this article, and has done so without any issue whatsoever since this 2008 edit. Further, Catholic Memorial School (disambiguation) doesn't even exist. Is the closer ignoring broad consensus? I don't understand.

I challenge this decision on the grounds that the closer appears to be trying to follow local consensus rather than community consensus, in direct conflict with what it says on the WP:CONSENSUS policy page at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS:

Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.

In addition, those who argued "Catholic Memorial School" is ambiguous and should be a dab page were repeatedly asked to support this position by listing what else would be listed on such a dab page, and there never was a response.

Is this an oversight? Or intentional? Either way, I would like the decision reconsidered by the closer, and ideally reversed in accordance with community consensus, but clarified if not, for I find this reasoning nonsensical. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

And I, in turn, do not understand where you find "wider" community consensus. The fact that the particular redirect in question has existed since 2008 is by definition local. I have re-read the discussion and stand by my finding of lack of consensus. I have posted to Wikipedia_talk:RM#Review_move_decision so that other RM admins can review my close. If they are convinced that I have closed incorrectly, then I shall modify the result.--Aervanath (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I mean over the four years since that redirect has been created, apparently everyone who has encountered it for one reason or another did not have an issue with it... doesn't that imply community consensus? What distinguishes local consensus from community consensus is that local consensus involves a limited group of editors, at one place and time (see quote above). Four years is hardly one time.

Anyway, even in this discussion there was no challenge to that redirect, therefore there is no question about Catholic Memorial School being unambiguous and the primary topic for the topic of this article. Though the opinion to the contrary was expressed (by three editors who opposed and mentioned primary topic), it was without basis; there was no argument presented against it being unambiguous or primary, much less one that refutes the simple assertion that it's obviously unambiguous and primary because of the redirect. None of the three answered any of the questions that they were all asked about their positions. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says that local doesn't override broad. The wider community consensus is in WP:COMMONNAME (the common names do not include a parenthetical qualifier), WP:PRECISION (the unqualified names have sufficient precision), and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (since there is no ambiguity, the primary [only] topic goes to the base name). In these cases the naming and disambiguation guidelines agree on unqualified titles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Despite having voted in support of the move, I have a tendency to respect consensus even when it disagrees with my view. On this occasion though, I must admit that it seems like an odd close. The supporting arguments seemed to be a lot stronger than the opposing arguments, not the least of which was strong references to existing policy and process that the opposing arguments lacked. I wouldn't mind a review of the close either, just to be sure. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Techno, whatever appeal to policy is made, I think we have to regard the current WP:TITLE as it. "Recognizability – Is the candidate title a recognizable name or description of the topic?" and "Precision – How precise is the title under discussion? Consensus titles usually use names and terms that are precise (see below), but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously." Tony (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. And the presence or absence of the word 'High' is, in my opinion, enough to identify the topic of their respective articles unambiguously. It specifically says we don't disambiguate more than necessary, and I think the arguments above demonstrated that there's no necessity in the extra information, certainly not in the article title. But this isn't the place to restate arguments from the main voting, I just think a review is probably a good idea. I'd like the reviewing admin to at least explain their assessment a little more clearly. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The base name is obviously recognizable, since it's the actual name of the entity. The "Recognizability" criterion does not demand that readers unfamiliar with the topic be able to recognize the name; were it otherwise, every title would need some sort of disambiguator. The base name is also exactly as precise as needed, unless someone were to find another article that could reasonably have the same title. Powers T 21:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the clarification recently issued is little help. The closer apparently found no consensus that the current title is unambiguous, but discounted the plain evidence that the base name redirects here -- and that there is no disambiguation page. Questions of fact are not subject to consensus. It's plainly impossible for the community to find a consensus that there is ambiguity here in the face of the plain fact that there is no actual ambiguity. Powers T 15:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the rationale in the clarification of the closing is confusing and self-contradictory. olderwiser 15:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverse or start anew?[edit]

Given the apparent consensus about the closing decision being nonsensical expressed above, should someone reverse it, or do we start a new proposal? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Or do we just walk away, wait for things to settle, and try again in 6 months? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm fine with that as long as no one tries to use this "decision" as some sort of precedent in other cases. Powers T 19:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
This decision was not meant as precedent. Findings of "no consensus" are never meant as precedent.--Aervanath (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm aware of that, but my concern stands. Powers T 02:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
As well it should. The finding here was essentially that even when a given term redirects to an article, and has done so for years, and there is no basis for creating a dab page (because there are no other topics to list on it), that does not establish lack of ambiguity, much less primary topic; that even in such a case there can be "no consensus" about ambiguity and primary topic. That's a very bad precedent, I know of no other case like it, but now people can point to this case and say it was declared so by an admin here. Nothing can or even should prevent them from doing so. The fact that the decision about this move was "no consensus" does not reduce the potential precedent effect on this critical issue one iota. In fact, the "no consensus" finding on such a clear-cut situation is the very thing that makes it such a dangerous precedent. I don't think waiting six months is a good idea at all. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
For the record, this decision has now been used as precedent, in an ARBCOM case no less (see last 3 paragraphs of this comment). --Born2cycle (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
But we wouldn't want link these things selectively, would we? See also the follow-ups to that diff, and see also the continuation here at the talkpage for the Workshop page of that ArbCom case, after Born2cycle's late submission had got him the last word on the page itself. Note my closing remark, asking that we now move on and let ArbCom deliberate. (Well, an editor can hope.)
NoeticaTea? 00:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
You seem to have missed the point, Noetica. Above, Powers expressed concern that this decision might be used as precedent. Aervanath assured him it wouldn't be. Yet you did use it as precedent, and I linked to that. I don't see how what what you say in your post here connects with the discussion in this section. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Enough! I thought you were so pressed for time that twice you couldn't meet ArbCom's deadlines, though everyone else made sure to do so. Your post here was selective. Editors would in fact be interested to see how that theme was continued, at ArbCom – if anyone is interested at all, that is. The fact, for example, that your own great slabs of disruptive posting over this RM (which went against your wishes) are given in evidence. Can we leave it? I'll leave it, if you will stop posting ubiquitously, selectively, and disingenuously to promote your own take on things. I have more pressing things to do than correct chase such abuses.
NoeticaTea? 01:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
What are you going on and on about, Noetica? I still don't see how anything you're posting here is relevant to the discussion in this section. Editors here might also be interested in the results of the Academy Awards last night. Shall we discuss that too? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Born2cycle, that's a blatant mischaracterization. As your link to Noetica's commets shows clearly, he was not citing this case as anything like a titling precedent, but only as an example of your outrageous behavior. You've just provided more, heaping insult on injury; should he never point that out, either? Dicklyon (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
"Born2cycle's opinion" is that we have broad consensus on WP regarding WP:PRECISION... that titles should be only as precise as necessary, which is why I believe broad consensus supports moving this article to Catholic Memorial School. Many of us disagreed with the "no consensus" close here because it seemed to ignore that broad consensus view, but recognized it didn't really matter if it wasn't used as "some sort of precedent" (Powers' words).

Noetica used this case as an example of a decision not agreeing with what he (and you) misrepresent as "Born2cycle's opinion", but which of course is the opinion supported by broad consensus. I thought that was using this case as "some sort of precedent". You apparently do not. I wonder what Powers thinks. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, it appears the use in question is as evidence in an ArbCom case. I was referring specifically to using the decision not to move this article to the shortened title as precedent in future, similar move requests, which I would find undesirable. I have no opinion on using this example as evidence in an ArbCom case. Powers T 02:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, the close with no consensus shows nothing except that there's no consensus. B2C's reaction to the two closes, on the other hand, shows that he is perfectly willing to neglect opinions of 9 other editors who care about titling and policy and claim consensus in his favor. That's the point Noetica was making at arbcom, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Most of those nine were questioned and unanswered. These questions go to the root of what each of the oppose comments says, and no one has answered them. That should be considered in any evaluation. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Powers. It just seemed to me that using this as an example in an ArbCom case upon which countless RM cases may rely is even worse. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Somehow I doubt the ArbCom case is going to result in a finding that unnecessary parentheticals are desirable. Powers T 03:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
True. But what I'm hoping that ArbCom will find is that repeatedly arguing in favor of unnecessary parentheticals (and other forms of unnecessary precision) is contrary to general consensus and is a form of IDHT disruptive editing. This example was used as counterpoint to my argument in favor of such a finding. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Nine months later[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

SarekOfVulcan suggested above that we try again in six months. It's now been more than eight. So here we go, in hopes that the arguments in favor of this move can be presented more cogently and persuasively this time. Powers T 23:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Memorial School (West Roxbury, Massachusetts)Catholic Memorial School – We have, in the past, consistently found that when an undisambiguated ("base") name redirects to a disambiguated name, the redirection should be reversed. -- Powers T 23:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Examples are almost too numerous to count, and they are, indeed, generally considered "uncontroversial" at the Requested Moves page -- that is, the situation is so commonly encountered that in most cases no discussion is necessary to perform the move. Indeed, just a few days ago, a user moved the page to the undisambiguated title, presumably because this is indeed so routine an action.

But here, what is normally routine has been anything but.

To acknowledge the point of those opposed, there certainly are other institutions with which this one may be confused, by name. But none of those other institutions happen to share the exact name "Catholic Memorial School". That makes disambiguation seem unnecessary, since (per WP:D) the only purpose of disambiguation is to obtain a unique title -- not a fully contextualized one, but simply unique. Remember, although this simple title seems "ambiguous" colloquially, it's important to understand that WP:D defines ambiguity specifically as "refer[ing] to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles" (emphasis added). "Catholic Memorial School" refers to one, and only one, topic covered by a Wikipedia article: this one. (And that is evidenced by the fact that the undisambiguated title redirects here.)

Certainly a hatnote pointing to appropriate other articles or disambiguation pages is in order, as it is now. That would not change. In fact, the way that a reader accesses this article would not change in any way, as a search or link to Catholic Memorial School comes right here regardless. The addition of the place-name context provides no improvement in access, and no improvement in disambiguation.

The only possible improvement presented by opposers is to clarity: that it tells a reader immediately that this is an article on a school in West Roxbury, allowing them to know immediately whether or not it is the one they're looking for. While clarity is a laudable goal, it has never been the consensus of Wikipedia users that parenthetical disambiguation should be added for the sole purpose of enhancing said clarity. Article titles are intended to be unique identifiers, not fully contextualized descriptors. For example, we do not use Benjamin Harrison (U.S. president) as our article title, even though many people outside the U.S. may be unfamiliar with the name; instead we rely on the lede sentence and the infobox to inform readers as to who Benjamin Harrison was.

Considering all of these factors, it's clear that longstanding site consensus points toward avoiding parenthetical disambiguation when it's not necessary for purposes of creating a unique identifier. There is no, and has never been any, consensus for expanding the purpose of article titles to include full contextualization; as long as that consensus doesn't exist, we should treat this article's title as we would any other of its form, and reverse the current redirect direction.

-- Powers T 23:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Support. Certainly one of the best RM proposals I've ever read. I have nothing to add; the current title is unnecessarily disambiguated. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - And, at least, move from (West Roxbury, Massachusetts) to (Boston) per WP:PRECISE. West Roxbury is a neighborhood in Boston, and there's no CM in the South End, or East Boston, or Roslindale. Achowat (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, well presented summary of the case for not including the unnecessary disambiguation in the title. olderwiser 00:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Are there any examples of disambiguators on Wiki that are longer and more unnecessary than this one? I certainly hope not. Remember folks, the title should be the name of the subject, and not its postal address. Kauffner (talk) 02:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Unnecessary contextualizing phrases should not be included in the title. The unqualified name is perfectly fine in this case at this time. --Polaron | Talk 03:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral. If another "Catholic Memorial School" that is notable shows up, then we move this page back. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 19:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
    • That assumes this use would not be primary compared to the other use - I think that's a safe assumption. I also presume most everyone in support of this move would agree to such a move should another CMS (actual article) show up. I, for one, certainly would. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Agreed. Powers T 21:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The nomination says everything I possibly could. The parenthetical is totally unnecessary.--Cúchullain t/c 20:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support no other articles with the same name. Hot Stop (Edits) 00:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catholic Memorial School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Catholic Memorial School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)