Talk:Schiller Woods magic water pump

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that some regular users of the Schiller Woods magic water pump near Chicago believe it was covertly blessed by Pope John Paul II in 1979? Source: Borrelli, Christopher (4 October 2019). "There's magic in a Schiller Woods water pump, or so many Chicagoans, for generations, have wanted to believe". Chicago Tribune. And also, yes, I was told, by many, that the pope himself blessed this pump, in 1979. “Holy water” — that’s what they call it. For the record, to play the wet rag of reality: In 1979, 40 years ago this week, Pope John Paul II did visit the Northwest Side of Chicago, but his motorcade stayed primarily along Nagle and Milwaukee avenues and the Kennedy Expressway (and barely slowed down). There is nothing to suggest — from newspaper accounts to official itineraries — that the pope set aside the time to bless a single hand pump.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dir, dir, Jehova, will ich singen

Created by Ganesha811 (talk). Self-nominated at 19:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC).

• New enough and long enough. QPQ present. Hook fact is very interesting and checks out. No copyvio or textual issues. Ready to go. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 2 September 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Schiller Woods magic water pump → Schiller Woods water pump – The current title is not a common name for this subject – I can only find one source (a blog) that uses the exact phrase "magic water pump" in this connection, and one more (ABC) that calls it a "'magic' water well" (with "magic" in quote marks). The pump is, in fact, more commonly referred to as the "Fountain of Youth", but this is obviously not an appropriate title for this article.

Therefore, since there is no suitable common name, a simple descriptive title is best, which should adhere to the article title criteria. The current title, in my opinion, fails the tests of naturalness and concision: policy on the latter point states that the title should be "no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." There are no other Wikipedia articles about water pumps in Schiller Woods, so the descriptor "magic" is not needed for disambiguation purposes, and makes the title longer than necessary.

The current title also, in my view, falls foul of WP:NPOVTITLE, which says that descriptive titles should "reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions". The water pump is not magic, and the insertion of this word into the title gives the impression, at least, of non-neutrality. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with this requested move, which would result in a worse title for this article. I agree that the current title is not a WP:COMMONNAME for this subject, but that's because it doesn't have a common name. The pump is just a pump, after all, and over 70 years no widely recognized other name has emerged. I agree that Fountain of Youth or any variant thereof is not an appropriate title. I also agree that a simple descriptive title is best and that it should adhere to the criteria.

I disagree that the current title fails the criteria of naturalness or concision. There are other pumps nearby - the article mentions one across the street, also in Schiller Woods, so it would be imprecise to simply call the article "Schiller Woods water pump." The other pump (and any other nearby) are not notable, but they still exist. The article title should also be recognizable. What makes this pump notable and recognizable is its "magic" - including that in the title makes it distinctive and immediately lets the reader understand what the article is about. The current article title is also more natural - again, because what sets this pump apart is precisely that people see it as magical. Finally, I don't see how this is non-NPOV. Being magical is what the pump is known for - whether or not anyone believes that magic is "real" is not the issue at hand. It's no more non-NPOV than the many titles calling people 'magicians' in Category:American magicians. The article title should be kept as it is. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per logic of Ganesha811. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2022 (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.