Talk:Mercy Career & Technical High School

Assess

This is a start on this school article. Further advice is available at the school project page. 1. Add some topics (like history, notable alumni, etc) 2. Keep adding references 3. Add pictures 4. Ask for an assessment at the schools project.EagleFan (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 13 July 2016

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 to Mercy Career and Technical High School - This didn't require a discussion hence why I've moved it –Davey2010^Talk 13:41, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Mercy Vocational High School → Mercy Career & Technical – School has changed has rebranded itself. Please see: https://www.mercycte.org for further information regarding rebranding. WburleyCTE (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Move should be to Mercy Career and Technical High School. Other than that, seems non contentious to me. John from Idegon (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2016 (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.

Requested move 18 July 2016

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: Not Moved Closing again - We never use & and and as noted below it's clearly a High School, I'd advise the nom to pack it in with the requests and move on - The school will remain at "Mercy Career and Technical High School" for all of eternity ... well until it rebrands itself again I suppose, Anyway consensus is to leave it be. –Davey2010^Talk 19:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Mercy Career and Technical High School → Mercy Career & Technical – Page was moved, however it was incorrectly named. The school's branding reflects Mercy Career & Technical with the use of the "&" and never using "and". WburleyCTE (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose: 'High School' is clearly part of the name, per the institutions own website. Ebonelm (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - the school's branding needs have no importance here. Also, the OP of this section had ample time to start a discussion in his previous request. John from Idegon (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2016 (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.

Mercy Career & Technical High School

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Davey2010: I have followed the request moves and agree that full naming is to be used, as on the website. The naming followed a proposal by John_from_Idegon, with only a simple glitch: the use of and instead of &. I asked him why and got no answer. I though I was ignored because the question was trivial and made what looked to me now a uncontroversial move. --Robertiki (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

They may use "&" and that's lovely however we have our own policies and guidelines ...., A) You've ignored the consensus above and B) "&" is just lazy, John from Idegon may of not seen your message as this message system isn't brilliant so your message may not have been seen but either way if there's no response you go back to the TP and fire up another RM (which would probably be speedy closed anyway!).... –Davey2010^Talk 04:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

There have been two RMs here, and less than a week after the last one closed, specifically AGAINST the move you just made and had reverted, and you thought it uncontroversial? That's laughable. What the school desires our article be named is of no importance at all. And Davey gave you a piece of bad advice. To start another RM at this time would be just as disruptive as your move unequivocally was. Instructions for how to proceed may be found at WP:RM. I saw your message at my talk page. I didn't reply because I don't like to waste time. Your questions were moot, what you were asking me to do wasn't possible as the discussion was CLOSED. Guess I should have explained that to you but as you have been here nearly 3 years longer than I have, why should I have to? John from Idegon (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that was extremely useless advice!, Sorry I'm busy IRL, Anyway I also share Johns concerns in that you've been here for 6 years yet you pull a move I would expect off of an inexperienced editor/vandal .... My best advice Robertiki is for you to move on and read the relevant guidelines here before moving anymore articles. –Davey2010^Talk 04:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Ehm ... on 13 July WburleyCTE (looks like somebody working at the school) made a request after rebranding, from Mercy Vocational High School → Mercy Career & Technical, John from Idegon proposed Mercy Career and Technical High School. You wrote This didn't require a discussion and closed it ... without discussion (in less than 24 hours ...).

On 18 July WburleyCTE made a second request to Mercy Career & Technical. It is at this point I am aware of this reqest and follow, from the requested moves page.

One Oppose from @Ebonelm: gives the following reason: 'High School' is clearly part of the name, per the institutions own website..

I happen to agree and make the following edit.

John from Idegon Oppose instead is: the school's branding needs have no importance here , which I don't find very useful.

Before I could add any comment or question, in only 6 hours you closed the request.

No word was spent in both discussions, about the "&" instead of "and", so I asked directly on the talk page of John from Idegon. No answer in 5 days (but now I have found it had the time to write a request to you just as I made the move - he should have started instead a talk on this page).

As explained, no word spent about the "&". So, following WP:TITLE, WP:TITLEFORMAT and verifying WP:TSC violation, I made the change, as per the uncontested edit I already had done. I would stress that WP:AND doesn't apply here.

And any "lovely" and "just lazy" business naming choices are not our business. We have to assure recognizability as per WP:CRITERIA.

I am trying to be polite, so help me to continue to be so. --Robertiki (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

So you should have appealed the close of the move. If you intend to do that, please do so. But to continue to protest here is more waste of other editor's time just as your message at my talk page. The matter was settled. If you did not like the way it was settled, you have and had avenues available to you. None of them led to my talk page. I could not do anything to help you. Please either take this to move review or drop it. I will thank you for bringing this article unto my radar tho. It was, not untypical of a parochial school's page, quite promotional. It's not anymore. John from Idegon (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

If you had answered my question, as now, explaining that your choice of and was deliberate, I would not have made the move without discussion. And please, don't revile. --Robertiki (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Guys, this is starting to look like a High School quality argument here. Robertiki is correct in assuming I work for Mercy. I was asked to assist with updating the schools branding across all of their different online profiles. I've edited and built a few mediawiki sites before but never edited the real wikipedia before so my apologies for passing over guidelines that may be in place. I know ignorance of the rules isn't the best excuse but again, my apologies. I spoke with Davey2010 and understand why the "High School" portion must be displayed however if, and I'm just trying to understand what Dave has told me here, if the "&" comes down to preference I'll say that the school would prefer the "&" be used. It's how it displays everywhere online, it's how it displays on the transcripts, the report cards, the acceptance letters, all the checks, and even the front of the building. It's a dumb thing but if that is how it shows everywhere else wouldn't it then make sense to maintain that on this page? Anyway, I appreciate the heads up from Davey2010 regarding the rules here and equally appreciate Robertiki for attempting to assist. Response time when it comes to replies seems to be a big deal here so I'll give the heads up that I'm currently traveling and likely wont be able to respond for the next day or so. Thanks again, have a great weekend. WburleyCTE (talk) 05:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article does not belong to the school as an "online profile" where it's entitled to apply its own branding and marketing preferences; it's an independent encyclopedia article about the school, which has to follow Wikipedia's style and formatting and naming rules. The school itself gets no special say in the content or naming or formatting of this article — in fact, per our conflict of interest rules, as a representative of the school you shouldn't be editing the article at all except to correct strictly factual errors — for example, if we had the mailing address wrong then you'd be allowed to correct that, but you don't get to impose the school's own marketing and branding preferences on the article if those are in conflict with our rules requiring the use of the word "and" instead of an ampersand. We're not a social networking platform on which the article topic gets to control its content — we're an encyclopedia, on which the content and tone and formatting and writing style have to be encyclopedic. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I am asking you to revert the closing, the second move request should be kept open for at least a week, so we could discuss openly and fully the move. --Robertiki (talk) 06:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I forgot: your comments on the second closure makes you a WP:INVOLVED editor, which should never close a discussion. --Robertiki (talk) 06:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

So, once again, the place to go is move review. Not here. Especially since you are now disputing the propriety of the close. John from Idegon (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Would you, please, stop making unhelpful comments ? Perhaps I made a mistake, but I was in good faith, as explained and don't deserve your repeated "rude" personal comments. --Robertiki (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You have shown 0 good faith in everything you have done here. So, these are your choices going forward:

1. Drop it.
2. Take it to move review.
3. Or you will be explaining your actions at a noticeboard.

Good night! John from Idegon (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

+1 - I'm not going to revert the move so like John says you either take it to move review or you accept the consensus and kindly move on (the latter is the best option IMHO!), I'm not replying to the rest as I'm simply adding fuel to the fire. –Davey2010^Talk 14:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright, after a good sleep, everthing looks brighter. First I would like to apologize if I had caused any bad feelings. I would say that we all started on the wrong foot. Second, assuming good faith, missing evidence of intentional wrongdoing (I got it from my ANI request), I made some research to find misunderstanding points, and found a couple. Why I am not dropping the item ? Because I feel that I was not the only one to make mistakes and if the other mistakes are not exposed, what happened would repeat with another move or edit. I have found the following scenario (if I missed something, point it to me):

1. 14:15 13 July – WburleyCTE made a request after rebranding, from Mercy Vocational High School → Mercy Career & Technical - diff
2. 09:08 14 July - John from Idegon proposed Mercy Career & Technical High School - diff
3. 09:53 14 July - John from Idegon changes proposal to Mercy Career and Technical High School - diff
4. 13:38 14 July – Davey2010 moves the page to Mercy Career and Technical High School - diff
5. 13:41 14 July – Davey2010 closes the request diff
6. 12:49 18 July - WburleyCTE proposed the request from Mercy Career and Technical High School → Mercy Career & Technical - diff
7. 14:00 18 July – Robertiki adds High School to name in article - diff
8. 17:49 18 July – Ebonelm Oppose - diff
9. 18:36 18 July - John from Idegon Oppose - diff
10. 19:01 18 July – Davey2010 makes a speedy close - diff
11. 19:04 18 July – Davey2010 opens a talk in WburleyCTE page - diff
12. 19:25 18 July – WburleyCTE replies - diff and talk continues -diff and diff and diff - Talk ends at 20:33.
13. 16:15 19 July – Robertiki starts a talk in John from Idegon page - diff
14. 03:27 24 July – Robertiki removes unexplained asterisk - diff
15. 03:29 24 July – Robertiki moves the page to Mercy Career & Technical High School - diff
16. 03:34 24 July – Robertiki adds High School in infobox - diff
17. 03:40 24 July – Robertiki changes one link description - diff
18. 03:43 24 July – Davey2010 reverts the last move - diff
19. 03:54 24 July - John from Idegon starts a talk in Davey2010 page - diff
20. 04:00 24 July - Robertiki opens the present talk - diff
21. 04:05 24 July – Davey2010 answers to John from Idegon - diff

First my mistake, at number (13) I have made a question in the talk page of John from Idegon that instead I should have placed in the Mercy Career and Technical High School talk page. And now what I think was bad done:

• at number (5) the first speedy close Davey2010 made has not given time to WburleyCTE to explain himself. The ampersand question is not made.
• at number (10) the second speedy close Davey2010 made was really fast (less than 5 hours from open, and the ampersand question not made) and the next day I found the move request already closed (I would have asked what I asked directly to the proponent John from Idegon, see number (13) )
• at number (11) Davey2010 started a talk of which I was not aware (until today, it should be evident from the question I asked the next day)
• at number (13) John from Idegon doesn't reply (reason given in the present discussion)
• per what I remember, with proper names that use the ampersand, it is correct to use it as the article name. I found now that that was also the first choice of John from Idegon (see number (2)). Having no answer and thinking that it was probably because it was trivial (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Ampersand as: Retain ampersands in titles of works or organizations, such as Up & Down or AT&T.), before starting to sifting through the article (what in a more drastic way has done John from Idegon, see diff), I made the move.
• If I was not in good faith I would not have open a talk. That is what happened and taken as wrongdoing. The bad thing was that, until I opened the talk, nobody (me too) was talking on the article talk page, so some things written to one, got lost to others.

Before going to sleep, I felt really dispirited (as evident per my ANI-request), so this morning I took a read that took me to Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility. The point I found interesting is (at dealing with) : 1. First of all, consider whether you and the other editor may simply have misunderstood each other. Clarify, and ask for clarification. That is the reason of all this work. Another point is 4. ... Sometimes it helps to let the other editor know how their edit made you feel. Editors are not mind-readers. ... and that is my message for John from Idegon, following are the wording which made me feel bad:

• “That's laughable.” and “I didn't reply because I don't like to waste time. Your questions were moot, what you were asking me to do wasn't possible as the discussion was CLOSED. Guess I should have explained that to you but as you have been here nearly 3 years longer than I have, why should I have to?” - diff
• “But to continue to protest here is more waste of other editor's time just as your message at my talk page.” diff
• “You have shown 0 good faith in everything you have done here.” and “Or you will be explaining your actions at a noticeboard.” diff

So now, anything explained, it would be nice if you: “...strike out the unpleasant comments, or re-word it calmly and neutrally”.
To Davey2010 I am asking if you are aware of Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions:
Conflicts of interest: “An editor who has previously closed a move request relating to the same article may be seen as biased, especially if the previous request they closed is similar to the new request.”
Non-admin closure: “Non-admin closes normally require that: The consensus or lack thereof is clear after a full listing period (seven days).”.
In both closures, you did not give time to other editors to express their stand.
I would ask if we could resolve the point in good manner, starting anew ? Note: I am not in anyway connected to that school.--Robertiki (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 24 July 2016

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 with support. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Mercy Career and Technical High School → Mercy Career & Technical High School – There's been a big debate above over whether the article should be named "Mercy Career and Technical" or "Mercy Career & Technical High School", As someone above disagrees with the article title I'm firing up a new RM (Yes this is disruptive on all forms however I did technically close both early so instead of arguing to death over it I figured I'd fire it up and this time leave it for the full 7 days, I personally believe the article is fine and that we shouldn't use ampersand however I'll let the community decide, I would ask that everyone keeps their !vote short and sweet and to save all the "moans" for another day, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Ampersand which, after ruling that as a standard, the word and should be used instead of the ampersand (&), makes an explicit exception in titles of works or organizations, which is ruled that the ampersand should be retained. It is easy to find many examples: Up & Down, AT&T John Wiley & Sons, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, Procter & Gamble, Frost & Sullivan, Frankfurt School of Finance & Management, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Boston College Graduate School of Arts & Sciences, and so on. --Robertiki (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - first on the purely technical point that this is not the correct forum for this discussion and second that no one has offered any evidence that the proposed name is the proper name per WP:COMMONNAME, there is evidence that the requested name is not the OFFICIALNAME and a consensus above that the official name is not a suitable title and the existing name is a reasonable compromise. John from Idegon (talk) 06:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

This is the correct forum: nobody is proposing a change of the rules. But if you are trying to question the rule ("Retain ampersands in titles of works or organizations"), I would suggest to think about how odd it is to look at AT and T or Procter and Gamble or Frost and Sullivan: it is a issue of recognizability. Alright, I see that they have redirects, but are redirects and not the primary link. Unless I find other information, the organization own website is all we need: what do we read on the picture caption ? Or as header of the second section ? And on the about page: I read: "Mercy Career & Technical High School (Mercy CTE) provides an immersive ...". And it was also your first choice, think about it: why ? --Robertiki (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME does not apply to orgranization names, but to natural language article titles. The question of ignoring own info, happens only for organizations really well-known with a different name. Example: McLaren (not: Vodafone McLaren Mercedes). An organization that barely satisfies the WP:NOTE criteria doesn't have that problem. Mercy CTE simply lacks that notability. I.e. only valid name is as declared, within the pattern of WP:POLICY. --Robertiki (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support. WP:AMP is quite explicit in this regard. Retain ampersands in titles of works or organizations, such as Up & Down or AT&T, it says. The one area I would take issue though, is the assertion anove that "WP:COMMONNAME does not apply to orgranization names". That is false - WP:COMMONNAME applies everywhere. But that said, I don't see any evidence of reliable sources significantly deviating from the official name in terms of using the ampersand; it mostly seems to be present.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Change to Support per evidence below and Amakuru. John from Idegon (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2016 (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.

May one working for Mercy CTE vote or take part of consensus ?

WburleyCTE asked if he may vote about the closing of the move request. I think the question warrants its own section.
My answer is: no.
He also made the hint: This whole thing makes me want to just request the page be deleted and its simply referenced under the Sisters of Mercy page.. My answer, is: yes, you may request, but I can't find a reason to delete the page only because somebody working for Mercy CTE asks for it. If a page is deleted it is for lack of Wikipedia:Notability criteria, not why the name holder asked.
WburleyCTE, if you have other questions about your role on this article, this is the place to talk, but before read Bearcat explanations in the above archived talk. --Robertiki (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robertiki,

I've seen his response and understand what he's saying. Additionally I understand all points that have been brought up to me on separate occasions. I'll say this much: at no point did I have any malicious intent here. I have no desire to delete the page, it was an off hand comment I made in a moment of frustration combined with me not fully understanding what Wikipedia actually is. (Which has since been cleared up.) I'll reiterate what I said earlier, while ignorance of the rules by no means excuses what has happened I do apologize for the headaches caused. I appreciate the guiding hand some have granted with regards to educating me on the rules and policies here and at this point would just like to see the matter settled. Thanks again. :WburleyCTE (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

WburleyCTE. You are encouraged to contribute to talk page discussions and of course your opinion matters in a move discussion. You are most certainly allowed to participate on any level in discussions, including having a !vote. (Altho we don't actually vote here. An uninvolved editor will come by in a week and assess this discussion and decide what the best representation of the group opinion is.) Your opinion will be considered here, as long as it is based in reliable sources and Wikipedia policy and guidelines. No one, however, cares what the school wants. That much should be clear to you by now. I cannot speak for any other editors, but what would sway me to the "ampersand" title would be seeing it used in the school's name in newspaper, magazine or book sources that are independent of the school and the diocese. All the WP:MOS arguements become moot if we have sources upon which to base a WP:COMMONNAME decision on. John from Idegon (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps:

• a high school directory ?
• a Tri-County Independent School League roster ?
• a list of List of Scholarship Organizations ?
• another school website meetings schedule ?
• the Sister of Mercy organization ?

Hummm ... if we skip, Wikipedia, Facebook, Linkedin and his own website, sources are really spare. --Robertiki (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Of the sources you list, either they lack independence or reliability (Jostens is a class ring and yearbook vendor, not a directory. The athletic league and the scholarship organization are organizations the school belongs to. The Sisters of Mercy are the organization that runs the school. Hence these are not independent. And a school website is barely reliable for info on its own school...certainly not another). John from Idegon (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Your are right, but WP:COMMONNAME does not apply to orgranization names, but to natural language article titles. The question of ignoring own info happens only for organization's really well-known with a different name. Example: McLaren (not: Vodafone McLaren Mercedes). Ad organization that barely satisfies the WP:NOTE criteria doesn't have that problem. Mercy CTE simply lacks that notability. I.e. only valid name is as declared, within the pattern of WP:POLICY. --Robertiki (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)