Jump to content

Talk:Georges River Grammar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assess

[edit]

Needs topics and more refs. started. Welcome. Victuallers 14:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

[edit]

Is a "choir school" where people learn to sing, or does it provide general education for chldren say 6 through 12?Edison 13:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case the 'choir' school did provide a full education, initially for the boys in the choir of the church and then to all students who enrolled in the choir school both girls and boys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.20.233 (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC) 'Italic textBold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.171.91 (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC) [reply]

The school is called Georges River Grammar

[edit]

There is not School in the name. Georges River Grammar Official Site

I suggest it is renamed. Which I'll do in two weeks unless someone disagrees.

Paulzag (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 January 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed 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: Moved. Adding lower-case 'school' as proposed by SMM would make the title more normal looking. It is certainly an option though only one person favored this. Even in New South Wales there are other school articles that lack 'school' in their name. Look at Category:Private schools in New South Wales for examples like Abbotsleigh and Danebank. Confusion with a type of grammar doesn't seem likely; if the place was called 'Context Free Grammar' then perhaps we would have a problem. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Georges River Grammar School → Georges River Grammar – There no School in the name per http://www.grg.nsw.edu.au/ – Paulzag (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it is a school, not a type of grammar in the linguistic sense. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Georges River Grammar school. It needs WP:NATURAL disambiguation, because "Georges River Grammar" by itself is inherently ambiguous, weird, and confusing; I would take it for a published grammar of some kind, probably a grammar of French by someone named Georges River. I.e., it fails WP:RECOGNIZABLE without "school" being appended. These sections of WP:AT policy trump any WP:OFFICIALNAME demands. There's no cause to parenthetically disambiguate it, and the "school" should not be capitalized since it's not part of the proper name. Cf. a zillion semi-recent RMs in favor of natural disambiguations for domestic animal breed article titles, a comparable case (e.g. we use Flemish Giant rabbit, not Flemish Giant and not Flemish Giant (rabbit), nor Flemish Giant Rabbit since the "rabbit" word is not part of the formal name of the breed according to breed registries and other reliable sources, just as "school" is not a known part of the formal name of the subject of this school article). PS: An argument that people who work at grammar schools often drop the "school" and just use "X Grammar" and "Y Grammar" would be the WP:Specialist style fallacy, so I'd like to forestall that argument with that essay and the logic in it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Much as it pains me to say it, as this is usually a colloquial term and shouldn't usually be used as a title. But in this case it does seem to be the official name of the school, which has apparently never been called "grammar school" and has borne this name since its foundation. As to Georges River Grammar school, no, no, no! "Foo Grammar" is a perfectly natural way to refer to a grammar school in Commonwealth countries and would be understood by most people from those countries, so this is a clear WP:ENGVAR issue and not a case of specialist style. It's also not natural disambiguation at all, as the school is presumably never referred to as Georges River Grammar "school" (unlike a Flemish Giant rabbit!). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Post-close notes:

  1. @EdJohnston: To the closer, I didn't suggest it was confusable with a type of grammar, but with a published grammar (i.e., a book); "grammar" has three meanings, not just two.
  2. @Necrothesp: MOS:ENGVAR pertains to changing, e.g., "trunk" to "boot" with regard to car parts, or changing "neighbour" to "neighbor". It has nothing to do with whether disambiguation is needed. The very fact that this name only makes sense to a subset of English speakers is the very reason to have moved it to Georges River Grammar school or even Georges River Grammar (school), which makes sense to 100% of English speakers. The very fact that it's a colloquialism is the very problem. This name makes not sense at all to North Americans (at least; I'm skeptical of the claim that all Commonwealth subjects find it natural).

If I'd noticed this closed the way it did I would have taken it to WP:MR as having insufficient and insufficiently policy-reasoned "consensus" to move this to a naturally ambiguous name, but it's surely too late at this point, and should just be RM'ed again after some more time has passed. The finding of "consensus" is clearly wrong, since 50% of the participants raised the same natural ambiguity problem (for two different reasons), a clear WP:PRECISION problem, while the proponent never addressed this, and the lone supporter of the present name tried to counter this, but only did so by clearly misapplying MOS:ENGVAR. That's 2-0 against, from a valid policy arguments perspective.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not "misapplied" ENGVAR in any way. In fact, I think you've misapplied WP:PRECISION here, since the article title is precise enough to define the article. What does this title need disambiguation from, exactly? Do we translate every name from another language to English because English-speakers may not understand it? No we do not. So why do we need to explain this title which is actually in English in the first place? Your argument seems to be "I don't understand it so it needs to be moved". And you're saying my argument wasn't policy-based!-- Necrothesp (talk) 09:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Georges River Grammar. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliation

[edit]

It would appear that Georges River Grammar is not affiliated to the Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation. It's not included in this list, nor in Ref.11 in Affiliation section of this article. Does anyone know which schools corporation it does come under, if any? And why are we attributing it to the wrong one? Have they recently left or switched affiliation? My only interest here is as a pending changes reviewer, having just reverted this edit by IP 49.195.214.8. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Georges_River_Grammar&oldid=1202257104"