Talk:Peddie School

Name

Is it "The Peddie School" or just "Peddie School"? Would someone please look this up.

It is just "Peddie School" - they dropped the "The" shortly after adopting the new logo.

The above comment was true as of the redesign that took place in the 2000s, however the original name of "The Peddie School" was restored with the visual identity overhaul of 2019. Can this article be renamed (moved) to The Peddie School? I don't have the credentials to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurboTruth (talk • contribs) 14:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name) regarding the strong presumption to not include "The" at the start of an article title. Alansohn (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The Name Change

Dear Wikipedia user,

The school's name was recently changed.

The official name is now Peddie School.

"plus post-graduate"

Not only is "plus post-graduate" flawed grammatically, and a dangling modifier, but in this case it is especially confusing. "Post-graduate" usually means "beyond college" (for students who have bachelors' degrees), but in this context it might be intended to mean "beyond the twelfth grade." Does that mean "for students who have graduated from Peddie"? "For students (in any grade) who seek advanced placement in college"? Help, help, please! Unfree (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The term is widely used in U.S. private schools. It means extra schooling after receiving a high school diploma but before attending a university. Most often, the students are athletes who graduated from some other high school but need more academics before they can be admitted to a NCAA Division I school. They attend the private school for a year to get the academics they need and help the private school achieve athletic glory while there. --Orlady (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement

In accordance to my understanding of Wikipedia's Copyright Infringement Policy, I have deleted large amounts of text from this article which are posted on the school's website, www.peddie.org. Affected sections are:

Introductory section (http://www.peddie.org/podium/default.aspx?t=16392) Academics (http://www.peddie.org/life/academics/courses.asp) Athletics (http://www.peddie.org/life/athletics/philosophy.asp)

Note: These additions all seem to have been made from one IP address (71.172.194.44) which traces to Englewood, NJ, approximately six miles away from Peddie School. Thus, it may perhaps be worthy to note that these changes were possibly, if not likely, made by someone affiliated with the school.

Getmoreatp (talk) 04:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Listing "none" as a religion in the infobox

In this RfC there was a consensus discussion about the use of any variation od "religion: none" in article infoboxes.

Please read past the RfC title; that was the original question, but during the RfC the additional question

"Additional guidance on whether we need to post another RfC for fictional characters, dead people, schools, nations, political parties, etc. (just the ones that contain "religion = None" or something synonymous in the infobox) would be very helpful."

was asked, and the answer was

"In response to the additional point raised below, there's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc. If people really think they should be considered separately then feel free to start an additional RfC but this one provides ample grounds for deprecating the religion parameter"

Note the "in any article". User:Alansohn appears to have only read the RfC title and missed the fact that it applies to any artice.[1]

There was a very long discussion during the RfC, and a related discussion at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. In both cases, the overwhelming consensus was leave the parameter blank if the subject doesn't identify with a specific religion, with 65 support comments.

The Wikipedia community had ample opportunity (in the "other" section") to decide that the parameter should not be left blank if sourced or to decide that the parameter should not be left blank if the institution had a religion sometime in the past. The decision was clear: "Leave the parameter blank if the subject doesn't identify with a specific religion." The RfC did not list any exceptions. Anyone who feels that there should be an exception should post an RfC and see if the community agrees -- which is extremely unlikely, because there is no religion named "none", and according to the rules for filling out infoboxes we don't list "none" in any other infobox entries (children, spouse, college degree, etc.).

On a related note, I made an error. I normally limit myself to two reverts, and in this case I made three because I failed to check the edit history. This is still under the "no more than three reverts in any 24 hour period" rule, but I personally prefer to stop at two. I apologize for this error. Sorry about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I've read through the RfC and I don't see that a school is covered, not do I see that there is any guidance for a circumstance where there was a former religion that would have met your standard. Per your example, if someone has a former spouse or deceased children, we do list them. Saying "none" for college, where someone never attended may be deemed as not adding information, but saying "none (was Presbyterian)" is exactly what a reader may well be looking for. If we're trying to serve our readers, I say it stays. Stronger evidence of policy forbidding this would be needed to convince me otherwise. Alansohn (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

What part of "IN ANY ARTICLE" are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Cut the patronizing crap. I took at length for a third time through Template_talk:Infobox_person/Archive_28#RfC:_Religion_infobox_entries_for_individuals_that_have_no_religion, which is abundantly clear regarding "1.4 What this RfC is and is not... This RfC only applies to biographies of living persons, not organizations or historic figures." As you -- of all people has pointed out -- I agree 100%, but the top of this RfC does say "This RfC only applies to biographies of living persons, not organizations or historic figures." (Template talk:Infobox person#What this RfC is and is not) so I cannot cite this RfC as supporting omitting the parameter for in articles about deceased people (or fictional characters, schools, nations, political parties, etc.) unless an uninvolved administrator examines the arguments and tells us that there is a consensus for that. The issue of how this RfC would apply to any article other than for a person needs to be analyzed, as participants were told explicitly that it was limited exclusively to individuals. Regardless, this is not a case of "religion = None"; contrary to what some ignorant individual posted, school's do have a religion, and this one did. The argument that "religion = None" is inherently wrong where there is no religion, this is not the case where there was an official religion, and that official religion has been eliminated. If you want to start another RfC to make your case that a change in religious status could not be noted, please go ahead. Alansohn (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I refuse to have any further interaction with someone who thinks "Cut the patronizing crap" is a logical argument, so this is the last statement I will make on this topic. An uninvolved administrator did examine the arguments and did tell us that there is a consensus for leaving the parameter blank instead of inserting any variation on "none", and he did tell us that the RfC applies to schools. Also, you are in clear violation of WP:NPA, which I see you have been blocked for multiple times. I strongly advise you to read Law of holes before replying. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Cut the sanctimonious crap. You were the one who offered "What part of "IN ANY ARTICLE" are you having trouble understanding?" as a serious argument, weren't you? Alansohn (talk) 04:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)