This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Image:OCRLogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
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 no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
According to one user, I have to discuss why I want to I want to follow Wikipedia policy before doing it! Apparently, following policy is 'controversial'. (I really hope no one shows this user be bold or they'd really freak!)
The reasons for this are blindingly obvious, but I shall go through them anyway: the article cannot be at OCR because that already exists as a disambiguation page. Therefore, some form of disambiguation of this page is needed. The rules for abbreviations clearly state that the article should reside at its spelled-out name:
So, does anyone object to me following established Wikipedia policy or can I just get on with it? - Green Tentacle (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
"(I really hope no one shows this user be bold or they'd really freak!)" - Thanks, but let's get rid of the sarcasm, m'kay? Being an administrator, I'm well, well aware of the policies of Wikipedia, and for your information, MoS for abbreviations is not policy, but instead a guideline - as clearly stated at the top of the page, "Editors should follow it, except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article". With that in mind, I believe this article makes more sense here, at OCR (examinations board), because that is precisely what the company is known as, just as the BBC is known as the BBC and not the British Broadcasting Coorperation, or AQA is known as AQA, and not the Assesments and Qualifications Allience (and depending on the outcome of this discussion, I will be suggesting that said article is moved to AQA). Now, it is standard practice on Wikipedia to discuss contraversial changes before bulldozing them through, and this is no exception. We shall wait a while for this discussion to progress before blindly ignoring those that disagree with you and moving regardless. Finally, just to highlight your misunderstanding: "So, does anyone object to me following established Wikipedia policy or can I just get on with it?" - there is no policy involved here, only guidelines. TalkIslander 22:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hold on, I think I've got it! It's not a 'policy', it's a 'guideline' and it's controversial to follow a 'guideline'. Oh, thanks!
I took a moment to look at warning on the move page and the page it linked to. I note with surprise that reason number two is 'the title does not follow the wiki's naming conventions'. Silly me for following the instructions again!
Seriously (seeing as you don't like sarcasm), I take your point about the acronym being the common name and if OCR and AQA were only exam boards, you might have an argument for putting them at OCR and AQA, but this is not the case. Unlike BBC, OCR and AQA stand for lots of things, of which the exam boards are not the dominant meanings, so they cannot be at simply OCR or AQA: some form of title disambiguation is needed. Therefore, any benefit of putting the names at their acronyms is lost. Most people who type the names in are going to arrive at the articles via the disambiguation page. This means we have to consider how best to disambiguate the name. Here, it becomes obvious that Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations should be used, as it follows the guidelines. Yes, the guidelines say to break them if it improves the article, but having it at OCR (examination board) doesn't improve it because no-one's going to type that in and provides less information than the spelled-out name.
The reason I moved the page twice was because I thought you'd misunderstood why I moved the page, so I did it again, with an explanation. I didn't realise then that you were an administrator and knew everything.
Finally, a question to consider. What's more controversial: following a guideline or breaking it? - Green Tentacle (talk) 23:15, 28 May 2008 (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.
Move from OCR (examination board) to Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations
Having given it a few months to settle, I am once again going to try to improve Wikipedia by making the move suggested above. The reasons for this are fully explained in the above section. Basically, Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that 'Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations' is correct and that the page should therefore be moved. There was one objection to this move, with no valid reason ever given. Another user started a poll. The objecting user didn't bother voting, leaving a 100% majority in favour of a page move. For this reason, and given that I have left it several months and there has been no additional debate, I am making the page move. - Green Tentacle (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)