Talk:University of Louisville School of Law/Archive 1

Requested move

 * 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. 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The result of the move request was: nomination withdrawn. No prejudice against a new RM. Jenks24 (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

University of Louisville School of Law → Louis D. Brandeis School of Law – This is the actual name of the school used on the UofL website. If the commonly recognized name (via Article titles) is "University of Louisville School of Law", then this discussion is a place to demonstrate this. The original move did not include any demonstration of such evidence as far as I can tell. Think of this as the discussion that should have occurred at that time. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 21:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I also would like to note that the other claim associated with the original move was "confusion with Brandeis University". I don't see any basis for this.  Brandeis U does not have a law school.  Ergo, no possible confusion.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 21:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See the article, Article titles and Official names. In Particular: People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy. Moving this article would only be confusing at this point. Nyth83 (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I fully understand the policies involved. If we are to follow the policy on common names, we cannot be building arguments on assertions. I could equally argue that calling something other than its real name is confusing.  Neither argument is applicable here.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 21:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll note again that the current name that is suggested as being common has never been demonstrated to be such here. We will need some data to show this as the common name. I shouldn't have to say this, but "because I say so" doesn't qualify as data. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 21:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the article should not have been moved just on your say so. No alumni who graduated before the name changed in 1997 will remember it being called Brandeis.  The School has been known by the honorary name for only the past 17 years.  It is not clear from the article when the previous name was adopted but it appears that it was known by that name for well over 100 years.  The UofL website is also causes confusion on what the 'official' name is by using three different forms on the same page;  LOUIS D. BRANDEIS SCHOOL OF LAW; U of L Brandeis School of Law; and Brandeis School of Law.  Again, we fall on the policy on NOT moving an article just because official name differs from the current name.  You have not provided any evidence that it is more commonly known by the patronage name in which it should be moved. Nyth83 (talk) 22:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't move it on my say so. I moved it based on actual evidence of its name from the official website.  As of yet, there is no evidence presented for the article's current name.  Until such evidence is presented, there is nothing to talk about with respect to the current title.  If you want the article to be named for a common name, you have to go beyond your assertions and provide data for this, such as mentions in news articles and such.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 22:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But you did. The 'evidence' of an 'offical' name is NOT a reason to rename an article. Nyth83 (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The difference is that I supplied evidence, and we're currently still waiting for evidence for the current name. There's no data presented at this point showing "University of Louisville School of Law" is the common name.  Unless that data is presented, you can't even call it "common" -- it's only your assertion at this point.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 22:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I can assert that the official name or one of the other listed common names are the common name too. That's why data is key here.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 22:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's something related to this move request. J. B. Speed School of Engineering has carried the school's real name as its title since the article's inception a decade ago. I think it's lead's layout suggests a useful a way of handling common/colloquial names for the school. I don't think there would be any naming confusion with that layout, and anyone searching on any of the common names would land where they intended to go. These of course are my assertions and don't act as a hard argument with respect to the title. But I think it's a reasonable way to go. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The only argument that makes is that perhaps that article was misnamed from the beginning. But it certainly is not an argument in favor of renaming an article just because it is not using the official name. Nyth83 (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And my personal opinion of the Wikipedia built-in search is that it is very limited and I often resort to using a google 'site:' search to find what I am looking for in Wikipedia. Nyth83 (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I find that the wiki search works great, especially if ample redirects have been created. And even without redirects, most of the results I get lead me to where I want to go.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 22:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It stinks at finding wikipedia pages other than articles. Try finding a template reference with the the internal search.  It won't. Nyth83 (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it stinks with the obscure searches that heavy editors like you and I do. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 22:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * LOL. I don't think that searching for a term like 'official names' is obscure. Nyth83 (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I do think it is, because most users aren't heavy editors. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 22:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We are discussing this based on policy. You brought the policy  Article titles to bear here and I concur with that.  The article should use the common name.  So, no matter what it was named at any time, if you're using a name suggested to be common, data should be shared to back this up.  Otherwise, you can't call it "common".  Again, the Speed School article shows a plausible way of dealing with this situation.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 22:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to rename the article, please provide evidence of the common name to that effect. An official web site for a school is not evidence any more that a commercial web site for a business.  Self promotion is not encyclopedic.  You would need sources from other than the U of L web site.  And the policy is still to not rename an article just because it is not using an 'official' name.Nyth83 (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for your data that shows the name you reverted back to is the common name. The current burden is on the current name to be proved.  If that can be proved, it just stays the same.  If it can't be proved, we then discuss an alternative. If the name is different from the official name, it is assumed common, but the current name has no data presented to back it up.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 22:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to cancel this move request and start a general move request to open it up, so that the clear burden of data falls on the particular choices given. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good idea. We are just going around in circles here.  If you move an article and then argue that it should not have been moved back because there is no evidence for the second move, when there was no evidence for the original move, that gets rather disingenuous, don't you think? Nyth83 (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The original move was done without any evidence for commonness provided. This is documented fact in the history.  At any rate, I think it's best to throw it all up in the air and have participants decide the proper name based on policy and data.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 23:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see the confusion. You must be referring the the name change that was made five years ago that nobody objected to.  Nyth83 (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That is not an argument based on policy regarding naming. I'm sure that you understand that the approach to content is essentially dependent on policy and guidelines, and not how long something was there, or whether someone had the gumption to challenge the renaming or not. You're not making an argument here that has any salience, and it won't in the next discussion either.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 00:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Case in point is that the featured article criteria used to be a lot more lax. When it became more stringent, many FA articles were failed, even though they had longstanding status as featured.  But that didn't matter -- only the current policy/guidelines mattered.  Also, because something was changed before, that doesn't mean it was done according to policy/guidelines. Time-based contentedness doesn't hold much weight compared to policy/guidelines.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 01:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You also continue to not acknowledge that the original move only had assertions and no evidence behind it. That is interesting and won't assist your position later. Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 01:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What I failed to realize was that we were discussing different things. You were talking about the previous name change from five years ago and I was talking about talking about your name change from a few day ago. I did not even realize that the name was previously changed five years ago until you mentioned the history and I went back and looked.   You are correct that there was no good evidence provided to justify the name change. The potential confusion with Brandeis University could have been covered with a tophat. Nyth83 (talk) 10:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Once an admin closes this, I will start an open move request that doesn't suggest what it should be renamed. I think because of the plethora of names this school is called, an "open naming convention" of sorts is called for. Any choice given, including the current name or the official name should have data backing it up in the discussion. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:05, 26 July 2014 (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.

Citations for common names in lead
I see that citations from UofL itself were used as references for common names. I'd like to point out that these references are inadequate for this purpose. References from independent, reliable sources are required here. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 11:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How ironic. You were the one that was referring to that same exact web page as evidence of the 'offical' name. Nyth83 (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The tagging was appropriate at the time. The official web page is evidence of the official name.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 14:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on University of Louisville School of Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140420012254/http://www.law.louisville.edu:80/professionaldevelopment/employment-report to http://www.law.louisville.edu/professionaldevelopment/employment-report

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)