Talk:Saint Patrick's Seminary and University

Unsourced section in article since 2008

If this section as tagged is not sourced within the next week, it will be removed as per the tag. Two years is too long for that section to exist as unsourced. --Morenooso (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Section was removed as per its maintenance tag and this section. If added back, it will need citations. --Morenooso (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced tag added 2010-04-26

While this article does have a Sources section, the article does not have a References section. The Unsourced tag template was placed on the article. New additons can be challenged and removed if they are not cited. --Morenooso (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the Cat technically falls in this maintenance's tag description. This seminary is accredited and the cat should remain until diffused or removed. At that time, a bot will remove it. --Morenooso (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Morenooso, I removed the cat for reasons that have nothing to do with sources or accreditation. I've replied in more detail on your talk page. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've read and still no consensus. --Morenooso (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Bessie Coleman
• Benjamin O. Davis, Jr.
• Mako Iwamatsu

My list goes on. When valid cats, exist there is no need for diffusion. When cats are deleted, the flavor of the week bot will be by shortly to rectify the cat. --Morenooso (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Recommendations for article improvement

• Infobox
• Picture
• Low-res logo
• Famous graduates --Morenooso (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
• A disambiguation page for "St. Patrick's Seminary" with a link to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.122.210.116 (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup tag added 2010-04-27

The WP:LEAD paragraph is too long, has the wrong tone and reads like an ad. Some of the information should be moved to other applicable sections. Citations are still lacking but improving. Article can stand a good or great copyedit. --Morenooso (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion on Categorization

_{Copied from User_talk:Morenooso#Saint_Patrick_Seminary.2C_Menlo_Park — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)}

I'd like to collaborate with you on deciding how this article is to be categorized. Communicating through edit summaries is not working for me. I do not fully understand the meaning of these summaries: Rv: this is an accredited institution as per its WP:LEAD Rv: No WP:CONSENSUS (let the bot do its work when the cat is removed) I agree that the institution is accredited; my removal of Category:Universities and colleges in California had nothing to do with accreditation; the category contains both accredited and unaccredited schools. Why do you expect Category:Universities and colleges in California to be removed by a bot? The category is not in the process of being renamed or deleted. The articles in the category are merely being diffused to subcategories. I am doing this diffusion by hand. Please see Wikipedia:Categorization#Diffusing_large_categories if you are unsure what category diffusion is. To complete the diffusion of Category:Universities and colleges in California, I am moving articles from Category:Universities and colleges in California to various subcategories. I certainly think the article should remain in Category:Universities and colleges in San Mateo County, California, which is a 2nd-level subcategory of Category:Universities and colleges in California. I'm open to suggestions for other subcategories which might apply. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I am aware of diffusion. However, there is no need to eliminate a valid cat. --Morenooso (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC) What's the use of diffusing a category if articles cannot be removed from the category? --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC) You tell me? There is no use when valid cats exist which you stated in your initial post here. I knew all that. Oh, BTW, I did communicate by other than edit summaries on the article talkpage as you found out. I know this article. --Morenooso (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I grant that you may be an expert on the article's subject. That does not give you absolute control over how the article is categorized. The purpose of diffusion is to break down ("diffuse") a large category into smaller, more specific subcategories. Diffusion is the reason why Saint Patrick Seminary, Menlo Park does not appear in Category:Education in California, Category:Universities and colleges in the United States, or Category:Seminaries and theological colleges. These would also be valid categories, in the sense that they apply to the subject of the article. However, at some level of the category hierarchy it becomes unwieldy to include every applicable article in the category. At that level, we begin creating narrower subcategories and diffusing the articles down into them. For Category:Universities and colleges in California, I believe that time has arrived, and at least one other editor agrees with me. How shall we resolve the dispute? --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC) I still disagree. I am watching the flavor of the week cat delsort with articles like Roscoe Lee Browne and I can find an editor that agrees with me too. Why don't you move to your next article and leave this one alone? --Morenooso (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Bessie Coleman Benjamin O. Davis, Jr. Mako Iwamatsu My list goes on. When valid cats, exist there is no need for diffusion. When cats are deleted, the flavor of the week bot will by shortly to rectify the cat. --Morenooso (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC) The category is not being deleted; it is being diffused. I have plenty of other articles to work on, but I want to get this issue resolved before I go much further. I would hate to have to revert several hundred edits in a few days. Regarding your examples: Note that Bessie Coleman is not listed in Category:People from Illinois because she is in Category:People from Chicago, Illinois and the latter is a proper subcategory of the former Note that Benjamin O. Davis, Jr. is not listed in Category:Case Western Reserve University because he is in Category:Case Western Reserve University alumni and the latter is a subcategory of the former Similarly, Saint Patrick Seminary, Menlo Park does not need to be listed in Category:Universities and colleges in California because it is listed in Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in California and Category:Universities and colleges in San Mateo County, California, both of which are proper subcategories of Category:Universities and colleges in California If you're still unconvinced, would you be amenable to getting a third opinion, or perhaps taking this to Wikipedia:WikiProject California or Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories for a broader discussion of the issues involved? --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC) One article is going to cause hundreds of reverts? C'mon, move along; let go of it. --Morenooso (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Tell you what: go for the third opinion and reference the talkpage and my talkpage to seek WP:CONSENSUS. --Morenooso (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC) BTW, your summaries missed lots too. Each one of the articles listed had cat delsorts as well. If valid cats exist, there is no need for diffusion. For as per all the examples, eventually a bot will come and sort them out. No need to jump the gun. --Morenooso (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Given the difficulty I have understanding your arguments (and apparently vice versa), I think a third opinion might prove helpful to us both. But first I'll try one more time. I'm sorry if any of my edit summaries were unclear. I'll try to do better in the future, and I'd appreciate any suggestions you have for improving my edit summaries. My edits to any particular article could be handled by a single revert. The situation in which hundreds of reverts would be necessary would be if I got nearly done with diffusing a category and then found out that consensus was not to diffuse the category. In the case of Category:Universities and colleges in California, the category contained about 200 articles when I started, and I expect to edit most of them during the diffusion process. I'm not trying to delete the article, nor am I trying to delete the category. I'm not out to delete anything, so I don't see what delsorts (deletion sorting tags) have to do with my edits. Can you clearly explain how delsorts relate to your argument? I also don't understand why you keep referring to bots. Which bots are you referring to and what do you expect them to eventually do to "sort out the situation"? If a bot is going to do what I'm trying to do (move the article out of Category:Universities and colleges in California) then why did you revert me when I did so by hand? Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC) I'm back after a period of illness. Since we seem deadlocked, I've submitted a request at Wikipedia:Third opinion. --Stepheng3 (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Saint Patrick's Seminary and University and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: The dispute, as I see it, boils down to this question: If an article fits within a subcategory, should it also remain in the higher category? The question is answered by the following paragraph of Wikipedia:Categorization#Diffusing_large_categories: Information about how a category is diffused may be given on the category page. Categories which are intended to be fully broken down into subcategories can be marked with the {{catdiffuse}} template, which indicates that any pages which editors might add to the main category should be moved to the appropriate subcategories when sufficient information is available. (If the proper subcategory for an article does not exist yet, either create the subcategory or leave the article in the parent category for the time being.) (Emphasis added.) In this particular case, the higher category, Category:Universities_and_colleges_in_California is indeed marked with the {{catdiffuse}} template. Since this article fits properly into a subcategory of that category, it should no longer be in Category:Universities_and_colleges_in_California, and the "should be moved" language in the guideline clearly indicates that the removal from the higher category should be done manually at the time of the insertion into the subcategory. If an editor feels that the article should also be left in the higher category, the proper remedy is to seek consensus for the removal of the {{catdiffuse}} template from Category:Universities_and_colleges_in_California, but until that is achieved this edit should stand.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)